{"id":218322,"date":"2011-06-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011"},"modified":"2018-03-28T10:09:43","modified_gmt":"2018-03-28T04:39:43","slug":"alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"Alameluammal vs The Director Of Elementary &#8230; on 21 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Alameluammal vs The Director Of Elementary &#8230; on 21 June, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 21\/06\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN\n\nW.P.(MD)No.7971 of 2007\n\nAlameluammal\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n              \t\t\t\t\nVs.\n\n1.The Director of Elementary Education,\n  College Road,\n  Chennai.\n\n2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,\n  Office of D.E.E.O.,\n  Madurai.\n\n3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,\n  Officer of A.E.E.O.,\n  Chellampatti - 625 566.\n\n4.Saraswathi\n\n5.Thilagavathy\n\n6.Puspha\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the\nrecords relating to the impugned seniority list dated 01.01.1998, 01.01.2007 and\nthe promotion granted in favour of the fourth respondent to the post of Middle\nSchool Headmistress dated 21.07.2007 by the second respondent in\nNa.Ka.No.2901\/A5\/07 and quash the same in so far as revising and placing the\nfourth respondent as senior to the petitioner in the seniority list for\nSecondary Grade Teacher in Chellampatty Union and consequently direct the\nrespondents 1 to 3 to treat the petitioner as having been promoted on 09.09.1998\nas Primary School Headmistress and accordingly place the petitioner as senior in\nthe interse seniority list drawn for promotion to the post of Middle School\nHeadmistress over and above the respondents 4 and 5 and grant all the\nconsequential benefits including retrospective promotion to the post of Middle\nSchool Headmistress, revision of pay scale, arrears of salary and all monetary\nbenefits and backwages.\n\n!For Petitioner\t...\tMr.N.Dilip Kumar\n^For RR 1 to 3\t...\tMr.D.Muruganandam\n\t\t        Additional Government Pleader\nFor R - 4\t... \tMr.A.Thirumurthy\nFor RR 5 &amp; 6\t... \tNo appearance\n********\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tOn 13.07.1988, the petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher<br \/>\nin Sedapatti Panchayat Union in Madurai District. The petitioner sought transfer<br \/>\nto Chellampatti Union on request. Accordingly, she was transferred to<br \/>\nChellampatti Union on 25.06.1992. Before she joined in Chellampatti Union, the<br \/>\nfourth respondent came to Chellampatti Union from some other union on<br \/>\n11.09.1991. Likewise, the fifth respondent came to Chellampatti Union on<br \/>\n01.10.1992. The petitioner has not claimed any relief against the sixth<br \/>\nrespondent, during the course of argument on the ground that the sixth<br \/>\nrespondent is senior to her.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner came to Chellampatti<br \/>\nUnion on 25.06.1992, she was a regular employee as her probation was<br \/>\nsuccessfully declared on 12.07.1990 with effect from 13.07.1988. But the fourth<br \/>\nrespondent was on probation, when she came to Chellampatti Union on 11.09.1991<br \/>\ni.e. though the fourth respondent came to Chellampatti Union earlier to the<br \/>\npetitioner, she has to be considered as junior, as she was only on probation. On<br \/>\n15.10.1994, she was regularised with effect from 01.09.1992 on successful<br \/>\ncompletion of probation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Since the fifth respondent joined Chellampatti Union only on<br \/>\n01.10.1992, after the petitioner joined on 25.06.1992, she should be treated as<br \/>\njunior to the petitioner in Chellampatti Panchayat Union.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The promotion to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher is Elementary<br \/>\nSchool Headmistress. Though the petitioner is senior, as stated above, the<br \/>\nfourth respondent was promoted as Elementary School Headmistress on 09.09.1998.<br \/>\nThe petitioner as well as the fifth respondent got promotion to the post of<br \/>\nElementary School Headmistress on 22.06.1999. The fourth respondent got further<br \/>\npromotion as Middle School Headmistress by an order dated 21.07.2007. Since the<br \/>\nfourth respondent was promoted on 09.09.1998, prior to the promotion of the<br \/>\npetitioner as Elementary School Headmistress, the fourth respondent was promoted<br \/>\nas Middle School Headmistress in July 2007. Till date, the petitioner has not<br \/>\nbeen promoted to the post of Middle School Headmistress.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. When the fourth respondent was promoted as Middle School Headmistress<br \/>\nin 2007, the petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the combined<br \/>\nseniority list dated 01.01.2007 of B.T.Assistant, Tamil Pandits and Elementary<br \/>\nSchool Headmistress, as the fourth respondent is shown at Serial No.4, while the<br \/>\npetitioner is shown at Serial No.6 and the fifth respondent at Serial No.5. The<br \/>\npetitioner has also questioned the promotion given to the fourth respondent by<br \/>\nan order dated 21.07.2007 as Middle School Headmistress and the fourth<br \/>\nrespondent joined duty on 24.07.2007 as Middle School Headmistress.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The petitioner pleaded that she was not aware of the seniority details<br \/>\ntill the impugned seniority list dated 01.01.2007 was published.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The fourth respondent filed counter-affidavit refuting the allegations<br \/>\nmade by the petitioner. The fourth respondent pleaded that the seniority list<br \/>\ndated 01.01.2007 is based on her promotion to the post of Elementary School<br \/>\nHeadmistress on 09.09.1998 and therefore, she was correctly shown as senior to<br \/>\nthe petitioner, as the petitioner was promoted as Elementary School Headmistress<br \/>\nonly on 22.06.1999. Without questioning the promotion of the fourth respondent<br \/>\nas Elementary School Headmistress in 1998, the petitioner could not maintain her<br \/>\nwrit petition. It is also stated that the writ petition suffers from serious<br \/>\nlaches, as the petitioner has approached this Court after 10 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. While so, this Court directed the Additional Government Pleader to<br \/>\nproduce the entire records on 06.01.2011. Pursuant to the direction issued by<br \/>\nthis Court, the Additional Government Pleader produced entire files. Thereafter,<br \/>\nthe petitioner filed petitions praying for (i) permission to file additional<br \/>\naffidavit, (ii) to raise additional grounds in the main writ petition, (iii) to<br \/>\npermit the petitioner to amend the prayer questioning the seniority list dated<br \/>\n01.01.1998 for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in Chellampatty Union and the<br \/>\npromotion given to the fourth respondent on 09.09.1998 as Elementary School<br \/>\nHeadmistress, questioning the combined seniority list dated 01.01.2007  and the<br \/>\norder dated 21.07.2007, promoting the fourth respondent as Middle School<br \/>\nHeadmistress and (iv) to dispense with the production of the impugned seniority<br \/>\nlist dated 01.01.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. All those applications were allowed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In the additional affidavit it is stated that the service details were<br \/>\nculled out from the records produced by the Department and a synopsis is filed.<br \/>\nIt is also stated that the seniority list of Secondary Grade teachers of<br \/>\nChellampatty Union was not circulated to the teachers including the petitioner<br \/>\nand therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the actual position. In these<br \/>\ncircumstances, she was not able to question the impugned seniority list dated<br \/>\n01.01.1998 of Secondary Grade teachers of Chellampatty Union, based on which the<br \/>\nfourth respondent was promoted to the post of Elementary School Headmistress on<br \/>\n09.09.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit and the other<br \/>\nofficial respondents did not file counter affidavit. As stated above, the fourth<br \/>\nrespondent filed a counter affidavit and the fifth and sixth respondents did not<br \/>\nenter appearance and also did not file any counter affidavit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. In the counter affidavit of the second respondent, it is stated that<br \/>\npursuant to the directions issued by the first respondent in the proceedings<br \/>\ndated 03.05.2004, the seniority list is furnished to teachers and their<br \/>\nobjections are sought.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Heard Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,<br \/>\nMr.D.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondents 1 to 3 and Mr.A.Thirumuthry, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nfourth respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. The learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the entire<br \/>\nfiles relating to the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. The second respondent is the competent authority to issue seniority<br \/>\nlist of Secondary Grade teachers of Chellampatti Union. But the second<br \/>\nrespondent did not issue the seniority list. On the other hand, the third<br \/>\nrespondent prepared the seniority list from 1993 to 1998, barring for the year<br \/>\n1996. For all those years from 1993 to 1998, the seniority lists were not<br \/>\ncirculated to the teachers. Though the first respondent issued a proceedings in<br \/>\nNa.Ka.No.47962\/ED1\/99, dated 19.11.1999, directing the third respondent to<br \/>\nprepare and send the seniority list to the second respondent before 24th January<br \/>\nof the year and the second respondent should look into the same and approve<br \/>\nbefore 31st January of the year and thereafter, the third respondent should<br \/>\nfurnish the seniority list to the teachers seeking their objections, if any and<br \/>\nthereafter, the third respondent should send the objections, if any to the<br \/>\nsecond respondent on or before 15th February of the year and finally, the second<br \/>\nrespondent should pass orders before last date of February of the year,<br \/>\nfinalising the seniority list, this was not followed by the respondents 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. I have perused the records produced by the learned Additional<br \/>\nGovernment Pleader and this procedure was not followed by the respondents 2 and\n<\/p>\n<p>3. As the petitioner and party respondents joined in Chellampatti Panchayat<br \/>\nUnion during 1991-92, the relevant years relating to the finalisation of<br \/>\nseniority list is 1993 to 1998, as the fourth respondent was promoted as<br \/>\nElementary School Headmistress in 1998. Barring 1996, the seniority lists were<br \/>\nprepared and signed by the third respondent and the same were not approved by<br \/>\nthe second respondent. Moreover, the seniority list was not circulated to<br \/>\nteachers and their objections were not sought by the third respondent. Though<br \/>\nseniority list of the year 1996 was signed by the second respondent, the same<br \/>\nwas also not communicated to the teachers, as seen from the records.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. It seems not only in the Chellampatti Village Panchayat but also in<br \/>\nthe other Unions in the entire state, the teachers were not furnished with the<br \/>\ndraft seniority list and their objections were not called for. Furthermore, the<br \/>\nseniority list was prepared by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer and<br \/>\nnot sent for approval to the District Elementary Educational Officer. Therefore,<br \/>\nthe first respondent issued a proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5939\/ED1\/2001, dated<br \/>\n15.11.2001 issuing guidelines directing the Assistant Elementary Educational<br \/>\nOfficer and District Elementary Officer to follow strictly the same in the<br \/>\npreparation of the seniority list. Paragraph No.23 of the said proceeding<br \/>\nrelevant for the case is extracted hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;&#8221;23. xt;bthU Mz;Lk; 1\/1 Bjjpapy; cs;sthW midj;J tif Mrphpah;fSf;fhd<br \/>\nKd;Dhpikg; gl;oay; jahhpj;J, mjid midj;J Mrphpah;fSf;Fk; Rw;Wf;F mDg;gp<br \/>\nmth;fspd; xg;g[jy; bgw;W mk;Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oaypy; Kuz;ghL cs;sjhf Bky;KiwaPL<br \/>\nmwpag;gl;lhy; mjid tpjpfspd;go ghprPyid bra;J jf;f Miz tHA;fpagpd; mt;thizapd;go<br \/>\nKd;Dhpik gl;oaypy; khw;wk; bra;ag;glBtz;oapUe;jhy;, khw;wk; bra;ag;gl;L rhp<br \/>\nbra;jgpd; mt;thz;L Bjhuhakhf Vw;gLk; fhypg; gzpaplA;fis xt;bthU gjtpapYk; fzpj;J<br \/>\ngpd; mf;fhypg; gzpapl vz;zpf;iff;F 2 klA;F jFjptha;e;jth;fis me;j me;j gjtpf;F<br \/>\nme;je;j Kd;Dhpikg; gl;oaypy; nUe;J Bgdy; (panel) jahhpf;fg;glBtz;Lk;. mt;thW<br \/>\njahhpf;fg;gl;l Bgdypy; cs;sth;fSf;F kl;Lk; Bgdiy Rw;Wf;F mDg;gp xg;g[jy; bgw;W<br \/>\nBfhg;gpy; itf;fg;glBtz;Lk;. Bgdypy; FiwghLfs; cs;sjhf Bky;KiwaPL bgwg;gl;lhy;<br \/>\nmjid tpjpfspd;go Ma;t[ bra;J jf;f Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;glBtz;Lk;, mt;thizapd;go<br \/>\nBgdypy; jpUj;jA;fs; Bkw;bfhs;s Btz;oapUe;jhy; mj;jpUj;jA;fis bra;aBtz;Lk;.<br \/>\nnt;thW Bgdy; nWjpahf;fg;gl;L mjid Vw;W epakd mYtyh; xg;g[jy; mspj;Jtpl;lhy;<br \/>\nmg;Bgdy; epakd mYtyh; xg;g[jy; mspj;j BjjpapypUe;J xU tUlk; eilKiwapy; nUf;Fk;<br \/>\nmg;Bgdy;gojhd gjtp cah;t[fs; tHA;fg;glBtz;Lk;. mg;Bgdy;, xg;gspj;j ehspypUe;J xU<br \/>\ntUlk; Koe;j gpd; fhyhtjpahfptpLk;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.Bkw;TwpathW gyKiw mwpt[iu, tHA;fg;gl;Lk; Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay; kw;Wk; Bgdy;<br \/>\njahh; bra;tjpy; xBu rPuhd eilKiw khtl;lA;fspy; ny;iy vd;gJk; gy khtl;lA;fspy;<br \/>\nKd;Dhpikg; gl;oay;fis khtl;lj; bjhlf;f fy;tp mYtyh; Vw;gspj;J mjid midj;J<br \/>\nMrphpah;fSf;Fk; Rw;Wf;F mDg;gg;gLtjpy;iy vd;gJ naf;Fehpd; ftdj;jpw;F<br \/>\nbfhz;Ltug;gl;Ls;sJ. vdBt khepyk; KGtJk; xBu rPuhd eilKiw gpd;gw;w fPH;fz;l<br \/>\neilKiwfs; &#8220;tFj;J jug;gLfpd;wd.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay; kw;Wk; Bgdy; vd;gJ epakd mYtyh; vd;w Kiwapy; khtl;lj;<br \/>\nbjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyuhy; jahhpf;fg;glBtz;Lk;. xt;bthU Mz;Lk; 01.01 Bjjpapy;<br \/>\nxt;bthU gjtpf;Fk; jFjptha;e;j Mrphpah;fspd; Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay; jahh;<br \/>\nbra;ag;glBtz;Lk;. nUg;gpDk;, Kd;Dhpik vd;gJ me;j me;j xd;wpa mstpBy<br \/>\nguhkhpf;fg;gLtjhy;, midj;J xd;wpaA;fSf;F khtl;lj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyuhy;<br \/>\nKd;Dhpikg;gl;oay; jahh; bra;tJ vspjhf ny;yhj epiyapy; cjtpj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp<br \/>\nmYtyh; Kd;Dhpikg; gl;oaiy fPH;f;fz;lthW tpjpfspd;go rhpahf jahh;bra;J khtl;lj;<br \/>\nbjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyh;fSf;F xt;bthU Mz;Lk; 31.1 f;Fs; mDg;gpitf;fBtz;Lk;,<br \/>\nxt;bthU Mz;Lk; 1.1 Bjjpapy; fPH;f;fz;lthW Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay;fs;<br \/>\njahhpf;fg;glBtz;Lk;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.Bkw;Twg;gl;lthW xt;bthU Mz;Lk; 01\/01 Bjjpapy; 22 Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay;fis<br \/>\nxd;wpa mstpy; cjtpj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyh;\/TLjy; cjtpj; bjhlf;ff;fy;tp mYtyh;<br \/>\nTl;lhf tpjpfspd;go rhpahf jahh;bra;J ifbahg;gkpl;L nUefy;fspy; 31.1 f;Fs;<br \/>\nrk;ge;jg;gl;;l khtl;lj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyUf;F mDg;gpitf;fBtz;Lk;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. rk;ge;jg;gl;l khtl;lj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyh; mjid tphpthf Th;e;jha;t[<br \/>\nbra;J 15.02.2001 f;Fs; Vw;gspj;J cjtpj; bjhlf;f fy;tp mYtyh; Kyk; midj;J<br \/>\nMrphpah;fSf;Fk; Rw;Wf;F mDg;gBtz;Lk;. efy; xd;W cjtpj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp<br \/>\nmYtyh;\/TLjy; cjtpj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyh; jfty; gyifapy; xl;lBtz;Lk;.<br \/>\nmg;gl;oay;fspy; VBjDk; Kuz;ghL cs;sjhf Bky;KiwaPL bgwg;gl;lhy; mjid cld;<br \/>\ntpjpfspd;go Ma;t[ bra;J rhpahf nUg;gpd; Vw;Bwh my;yJ epuhfhpj;Bjh Miz tHA;f<br \/>\nBtz;Lk; mt;thW Miz tHA;fpagpd; mjw;Bfw;g Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay;fspy; jpUj;jk;<br \/>\nBkw;bfhs;sg;gl Btz;oapUe;jhy; jpUj;jk; bra;ag;glBtz;Lk;. ng;gzp 28\/2 f;Fs;<br \/>\nKof;fg;glBtz;Lk;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. gpd;dh; me;j Mz;oy; fhypahf cs;s kw;Wk; fhyp Vw;gLk; gzpaplA;fis<br \/>\nfz;lwpe;J mtw;wpd; vz;zpf;iff;Bfw;g, 2 klA;F egh;fs; mlA;fpa me;je;j gjtpf;Fhpa<br \/>\nBgdy;fis (panel) me;j me;j   gjtpf;Fhpa Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay;fspy; nUe;J jahh;<br \/>\nbra;J, mg;Bgdypy; cs;s egh;fSf;F kl;Lk; Rw;Wf;F mDg;gp xg;g[jy; bgwBtz;Lk;.<br \/>\nng;gzp 15\/3 f;Fs; Kof;fg;glBtz;Lk;. (Kd;Dhpikg;gl;oay; thpir vz;. 8, 15, 16, 17,<br \/>\n18, 22 y; Twg;gl;Ls;s gl;oay;fspypUe;J Bgdy; jahh; bra;ag;glBtz;Lk;.)<\/p>\n<p>\t7. gpd;dh; mg;Bgdypy; Bky;KiwaPLfs; bgwg;gl;lhy; mitfSk; cldoahf<br \/>\nrhpbra;ag;gl;L Kgikahd xg;g[jy; bgw;w Bgdiy 31\/3 f;Fs; jahh; bra;aBtz;Lk;. mjhtJ<br \/>\nBgdy; xt;bthU Mz;Lk; 31\/3 f;Fs; Vw;gspg;g[ bra;aBtz;Lk; vd;W jpl;ltl;lkhf<br \/>\nbjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. The aforesaid proceedings dated 15.11.2001 of the first respondent<br \/>\nmakes it clear that the procedure was not followed in finalising the seniority<br \/>\nlist and teachers were not furnished with the seniority list in Panchayat<br \/>\nUnions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. It seems that even after the said proceeding in the year 2001 was not<br \/>\nfollowed as per the counter affidavit of the second respondent. The second<br \/>\nrespondent has averred in the counter affidavit that they followed the procedure<br \/>\nafter the proceeding dated 03.05.2004 of the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. When the learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated<br \/>\nthat the petitioner was not aware of the seniority list, the second respondent<br \/>\nhas not disputed the same in the counter affidavit. In paragraph No.6 of the<br \/>\naffidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;6. I submit that I was not aware of all the above seniority details till<br \/>\nthe impugned seniority list was published. Even during my promotion to the post<br \/>\nof Elementary School Headmistress I was not aware of these details and hence I<br \/>\ndid not dispute the earlier promotion of the respondents to the said post. I did<br \/>\nnot know that the respondents 4 to 5 were junior to me in Chellampatti Union as<br \/>\nthey were under probation.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit and there is no para<br \/>\nwise denial. As per paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;6. I respectfully submit that the seniority list was drawn by our<br \/>\nDepartment prior to the issue of the orders by the first respondent. As soon as<br \/>\nthe orders of the first respondent in his Na.Ka.No.9683\/D1\/2004 dated 03.05.2004<br \/>\nwas received, based on the guidelines issued by the first respondent the revised<br \/>\nseniority list was prepared and communicated to all the teachers, including the<br \/>\npresent petitioner.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>That is, it is admitted that the teachers were communicated with the seniority<br \/>\nlist only after 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22. As per paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit, the procedure is<br \/>\nfollowed only after the proceedings dated 03.05.2004 of the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t23. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner could not<br \/>\nbe blamed for not questioning the seniority list dated 01.01.1998 of Secondary<br \/>\nGrade Teacher of Chellampatti Union immediately. The seniority list dated<br \/>\n01.01.1998 is produced by the Additional Government Pleader and the same was not<br \/>\nissued by the second respondent. Thus, the seniority list itself is without any<br \/>\nauthority. The seniority list dated 01.01.1998 was prepared and signed by the<br \/>\nthird respondent alone. As stated above, the list was also not circulated to the<br \/>\nteachers and their objections were not called for.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t24. A Teacher who was similarly situated like the petitioner questioned<br \/>\nthe impugned seniority list as well as the promotion given to her junior. The<br \/>\nsaid writ petition was dismissed for laches by this Court by a learned Single<br \/>\nJudge and the matter was taken on appeal. The Division Bench of this Court in<br \/>\nA.Mani Vs. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Nungambakkam and<br \/>\nothers reported in 2008 Writ L.R.213, considered the aforesaid proceedings of<br \/>\nthe first respondent and also found that the seniority list was not circulated<br \/>\nin most of the panchayat unions including the panchayat union concerned that<br \/>\ncame for scrutiny. The Division Bench held that the petitioner could not be<br \/>\nblamed for questioning the seniority list on the ground of delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t25. In my view, the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of<br \/>\nthis case. Therefore, the petitioner could not be blamed for questioning the<br \/>\nseniority list dated 01.01.1998 of the Secondary Grade Teachers of the<br \/>\nChellampatti Panchayat Union immediately, since the same was not furnished to<br \/>\nher and the same was not prepared by the competent authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t26. The only plea of the fourth respondent is that the petitioner<br \/>\napproached this Court belatedly and therefore this Court should not interfere<br \/>\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As far as the facts are<br \/>\nconcerned, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent is not able to dispute<br \/>\nthe same. The learned counsel submits that prior to 1998, the fourth respondent<br \/>\nwas shown as junior and on her request, she was shown as senior. It is not known<br \/>\nas to how she came to know about her position in the seniority list, when the<br \/>\nsame was not circulated. He relies Rule No.35(f) of the Tamil Nadu State and<br \/>\nSubordinate Services Rules and submitted that the petitioner should have<br \/>\nquestioned the seniority list within three years. I am in full agreement with<br \/>\nthe submissions made by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, if the<br \/>\nseniority list was furnished to the petitioner and thereafter, she kept quiet.<br \/>\nIn this case, the second and third respondents did not furnish the seniority<br \/>\nlist to the teachers including the petitioner. Therefore, Rule 35(f) of the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules could not be applied in this<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t27. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent has relied on the<br \/>\ndecision of the Honourable Apex in K.R.Mudgal and others Vs. R.P.Singh and<br \/>\nothers reported in AIR 1986 SC 2086. In that case, the dispute that arose<br \/>\nrelating to the inter se seniority between the petitioners therein who were<br \/>\ndirectly appointed as Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau of the Government of<br \/>\nIndia in the year 1957 and certain other Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau,<br \/>\nwho were appointed prior to 01.02.1954 and the remaining were appointed or<br \/>\nabsorbed as Assistants prior to the induction of the petitioners into service as<br \/>\nAssistants. In the seniority list of the Assistants issued in the year 1958, the<br \/>\npetitioners were shown as junior to other Assistants and no objections were<br \/>\nraised by the petitioners against the seniority list, nor any objection was<br \/>\nraised by the petitioners against the seniority lists issued in 1961 and 1965<br \/>\nand it was only against the seniority list of 1975 that was prepared to rectify<br \/>\nthe mistake that had crept in the seniority list issued in 1968, the writ<br \/>\npetition came to be filed by the petitioners after 18 years. The Honourable Apex<br \/>\nCourt held that the petitioners were guilty of laches.  In that case, the<br \/>\npetitioners were issued with the seniority lists in the year 1958, 1961 and 1965<br \/>\nand thereafter, but they did not question the same and they kept quiet.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t28. In this case, as already stated above, the seniority lists were not<br \/>\nfurnished to the teachers including the petitioner and more over the seniority<br \/>\nlist was not prepared by the competent authority. Therefore, I am of the view<br \/>\nthat the said judgment could not be applied to the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t29. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition could<br \/>\nnot be dismissed on the ground of laches, when the seniority list itself was not<br \/>\ncirculated and the same was not prepared by the competent authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t30. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned seniority list<br \/>\ndated 01.01.1998 of Secondary Grade teachers of Chellampatti Panchayat Union.<br \/>\nThe said seniority list has shown the fourth respondent as senior to the<br \/>\npetitioner, while the fourth respondent was probationer, as on 25.06.1992, when<br \/>\nthe petitioner joined Chellampatti Panchayat Union. In perusal of the files, in<br \/>\nthe earlier years, the petitioner was shown as senior. But the same was altered<br \/>\nat the instance of the fourth respondent, without hearing the petitioner. Hence,<br \/>\nthe impugned seniority list dated 01.01.1998 is quashed. Based on the same, the<br \/>\npromotion as Elementary School Headmistress with effect from 09.09.1998 is also<br \/>\nset aside. The common seniority list dated 01.01.2007 is based on the said<br \/>\nseniority list dated 01.01.1998. Hence the same is also set aside. Since both<br \/>\nthe seniority lists are set aside, the promotion of Elementary School<br \/>\nHeadmistress given to fourth respondent in 1998 and the promotion given to the<br \/>\nfourth respondent as Middle School Headmistress by an order dated 21.07.2007<br \/>\nalso quashed. As far as the fifth respondent is concerned, she joined in<br \/>\nChellampatti Union only on 01.10.1992, after the petitioner joined on<br \/>\n25.06.1992. In fact in 1998, the fifth respondent is shown as junior in the<br \/>\nseniority list prepared by the third respondent as on 01.01.1998. In the said<br \/>\nseniority list dated 01.01.1998, the petitioner is shown at serial No.17, the<br \/>\nfourth respondent is shown at serial No.15 and the fifth respondent is shown at<br \/>\nserial No.19. But in the seniority list dated 01.01.2007, the fifth respondent<br \/>\nis shown at serial No.5, while the petitioner is shown at serial No.6. This is<br \/>\nnot warranted particularly when both of them were promoted as Elementary School<br \/>\nHeadmistress on the same date  ie. on 22.06.1999. For all these reasons, the<br \/>\nimpugned seniority list dated 01.01.2007 is set aside as far as fifth respondent<br \/>\nis also concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t31. In view of the above findings, the petitioner should be promoted from<br \/>\n09.09.1998, the date on which the fourth respondent was promoted as Elementary<br \/>\nSchool Headmistress. Further, promotion as Middle School Headmistress also<br \/>\nshould be given to the petitioner with effect from 21.07.2007, the date on which<br \/>\nthe fourth respondent was promoted. Hence, a direction is issued to the<br \/>\nrespondents to promote the petitioner as Elementary School Headmistress with<br \/>\neffect from 09.09.1998 and thereafter as Middle School Headmistress with effect<br \/>\nfrom 21.07.2007 with all benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe writ petition is disposed of with the above terms. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>ps<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Director of Elementary Education,<br \/>\n  College Road,<br \/>\n  Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,<br \/>\n  Office of D.E.E.O.,<br \/>\n  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,<br \/>\n  Officer of A.E.E.O.,<br \/>\n  Chellampatti &#8211; 625 566.\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Alameluammal vs The Director Of Elementary &#8230; on 21 June, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21\/06\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.(MD)No.7971 of 2007 Alameluammal &#8230; Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Office of D.E.E.O., Madurai. 3.The Assistant [&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-218322","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Alameluammal vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 21 June, 2011 - 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\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Alameluammal vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 21 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-06-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-28T04:39:43+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Alameluammal vs The Director Of Elementary &#8230; on 21 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-28T04:39:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3699,\"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\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011\",\"name\":\"Alameluammal vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 21 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-28T04:39:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Alameluammal vs The Director Of Elementary &#8230; on 21 June, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Alameluammal vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 21 June, 2011 - 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\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Alameluammal vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 21 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-28T04:39:43+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Alameluammal vs The Director Of Elementary &#8230; on 21 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-28T04:39:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011"},"wordCount":3699,"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\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011","name":"Alameluammal vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 21 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-28T04:39:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alameluammal-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-21-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Alameluammal vs The Director Of Elementary &#8230; on 21 June, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/218322","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=218322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218322\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}