{"id":220939,"date":"2004-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004"},"modified":"2016-02-17T09:39:57","modified_gmt":"2016-02-17T04:09:57","slug":"dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"Dr.N.V.R.Kapali vs University Of Madras on 23 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dr.N.V.R.Kapali vs University Of Madras on 23 February, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 23\/02\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\n\nWrit Petition No.35286 of 2002\n\n\nDr.N.V.R.Kapali,\n102, Venkatachala Mudali Street,\nMylapore,\nChennai-600004.                                         .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. University of Madras,\n   rep. by its Registrar,\n   Chepauk, Chennai-600005.\n\n2. Dr.Naseem Akthar,\n   No.13, 5th Street,\n   Sakthi Nagar,\n   Chennai-600094.\n\n3. The University Grants Commission,\n   rep. by its Secretary,\n   Bahadur Shah Jaffar Marg,\n   New Delhi.                                                   .. Respondents\n\n\n        PRAYER:  Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India  for\nissue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :       Mr.Mohan Parasaran, Sr.Counsel\n                        for M\/s.Sathish Parasaran\n\nFor Respondents:       Mr.N.Rajan - R1\n                        Mr.P.Jyothimani - R2\n                        Mr.S.Udhayakumar - R3\n\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The admitted facts are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        The   petitioner  was  appointed  as  Project  Officer  in  Population<br \/>\nEducation Resource Centre (for short &#8216;PERC&#8217;), in the Department of  Adult  and<br \/>\nContinuing Education, University of Madras, with effect from 10.4.1987, one of<br \/>\nthe   20   point   programme   sought   to   be   implemented   by  the  third<br \/>\nrespondent-Commission through the first respondent-University and  thereafter,<br \/>\nwas  appointed  as  Assistant  Director  in  the  PERC itself with effect from<br \/>\n5.8.1989, while the second respondent was appointed as Project Officer in  the<br \/>\nDepartment of Adult and Continuing Education, an extension programme under UGC<br \/>\n16th  point of the 20 point programme with effect from 14.8.1989, sought to be<br \/>\nimplemented  again  by  the  third  respondent-Commission  through  the  first<br \/>\nrespondentUniversity.  Both the programmes viz., Population Education Resource<br \/>\nCentre  as well as Adult and Continuing Education and extension programme come<br \/>\nunder the scheme called &#8220;Eradication of Illiteracy&#8221; and &#8220;Population Continuing<br \/>\nEducation&#8221; under the same department called &#8220;Adult and Continuing Education&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        1.2.  The  workload  and  the  entire  activities  of  the  Adult  and<br \/>\nContinuing  Education  and extension programme, which were initially under the<br \/>\nthird    respondent-Commission,    were    transferred    to     the     first<br \/>\nrespondent-University  directly  with  effect  from  1.4.1990 along with those<br \/>\nincumbents and accordingly, the second respondent got absorbed under the first<br \/>\nrespondent-University with effect from 1.4.1990  as  Project  Officer  of  the<br \/>\nAdult and Continuing Education directly under the first respondent-University.\n<\/p>\n<p>        1.3.    However,  the  workload  and  the  entire  activities  of  the<br \/>\nPopulation Education and Resource  Centre  were  transferred  from  the  third<br \/>\nrespondent-Commission  to  the  first  respondent-University  with effect from<br \/>\n1.4.1997 along with those incumbents and as a result, the writ petitioner  was<br \/>\nabsorbed  as  an  employee  of  the  first respondent-University directly with<br \/>\neffect from 1.4.1997, of course in his capacity as Assistant Director  of  the<br \/>\nPERC.\n<\/p>\n<p>        1.4.   Consequently,  the  petitioner,  who was initially appointed as<br \/>\nProject Officer in PERC on 10.4.1987 and then appointed as Assistant  Director<br \/>\nin   PERC   on   5.8.1989,   was   absorbed   as  an  employee  of  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent-University  only  with  effect  from  1.4.1997,  while  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent,  who  was  appointed  as  Project  Officer in Adult and Continuing<br \/>\nEducation and Extension Programme on 14.8.1989, was  absorbed  as  the  direct<br \/>\nemployee  of the first respondent-University much earlier, viz., 1.4.1990 when<br \/>\ncompared to that of the writ petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        1.5.  While the undisputed fact remains that  the  post  of  Assistant<br \/>\nDirector  is  higher rank carrying higher scale of pay equivalent to that of a<br \/>\nReader and the post of Project Officer is lower rank carrying lower  scale  of<br \/>\npay   equivalent   to  that  of  a  Lecturer  in  the  University,  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent-University by proceedings dated 2.9.2002 based on the resolution of<br \/>\nthe Senate dated 7.8.2002, fixed the seniority of  the  petitioner  below  the<br \/>\nsecond  respondent  in  the  department  of  Adult and Continuing Education as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<pre>                1.Dr.Naseem Akthar      - 1\/4\/90 (Project Officer)\n        (second respondent)\n\n                2.Dr.N.V.R.Kapali - 1\/4\/97 (Assistant Director)\n                (writ petitioner)\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>        1.6.   Aggrieved  by  the  same,  the  petitioner  seeks  a  writ   of<br \/>\nCertiorarified  Mandamus  to  call  for  the  records  of the first respondent<br \/>\ncomprised in the decision  dated  7.8.2002  of  the  Syndicate  of  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent-University  as  communicated in proceedings No.D-1(B)\/TE\/2002\/26 17<br \/>\ndated 2.9.2002, quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent<br \/>\nto fix the date of absorption of the petitioner as 5.8.1 989 which is the date<br \/>\nof his joining and to reckon his station seniority from the said date.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Mr.Mohan Parasaran,  learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner,    challenges    the    impugned    proceedings   of   the   first<br \/>\nrespondentUniversity dated 2.9.2002 fixing the seniority of the petitioner and<br \/>\nthe second respondent on the ground that the same is arbitrary, discriminatory<br \/>\nand violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of  the  Constitution  of  India,  as<br \/>\nunequals are treated as equals.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   Per  contra,  Mr.N.Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the first<br \/>\nrespondent-University, submits that the seniority could be reckoned  from  the<br \/>\ndate of absorption, but cannot be from the date of recruitment under the other<br \/>\nemployer, viz., the third respondent-Commission herein and therefore, there is<br \/>\nneither  arbitrary  nor  unreasonable  exercise  of  the  power  by  the first<br \/>\nrespondent-University nor  discrimination  or  violation  of  Article  14  and<br \/>\n19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  Mr.   P.    Jyothimani,  learned  counsel appearing for the second<br \/>\nrespondent,  besides  adopting  the  counter  argument  made  by   the   first<br \/>\nrespondent-University,  further submits that the second respondent having been<br \/>\nabsorbed much earlier by the first  respondent-University  as  the  University<br \/>\nemployee  as  early  as  1.4.1990, she is entitled to claim seniority over the<br \/>\npetitioner,  who  got  absorbed  and  became  the  employee   of   the   first<br \/>\nrespondent-University  only  from  1.4.1997  and  therefore,  there is neither<br \/>\narbitrary nor unreasonable exercise of power in the impugned proceedings dated<br \/>\n2.9.2002 nor any discrimination or violation of Articles 14  and  19(1)(g)  of<br \/>\nthe Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.    Mr.S.Udhayakumar,   learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  third<br \/>\nrespondent Commission submits that both Population Education  Resource  Centre<br \/>\nand  Adult,  Continuing  Education  &amp;  Extension programme come under the same<br \/>\ndepartment viz., Adult and Continuing Education  Department  under  the  third<br \/>\nrespondent-Commission  and  both the petitioner and the second respondent even<br \/>\nthough were absorbed at different points of time under different schemes, they<br \/>\nwere appointed in the same department viz., Adult and Continuing Education  in<br \/>\nthe  first  respondentUniversity,  their  previous  service  in the respective<br \/>\nscheme or programme has to be given weightage in fixing the seniority.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of all the<br \/>\nparties.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.1.  The fact that the Population Education Resource Centre  as  well<br \/>\nas the Adult and Continuing Education and Extension programme coming under the<br \/>\nsame  department, viz., Adult and Continuing Education Department, in order to<br \/>\nachieve  the  object  of  eradicating  illiteracy  either  under   the   third<br \/>\nrespondent-Commission   or  under  the  first  respondent-University,  is  not<br \/>\ndisputed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.2.  Similarly the fact that though  the  petitioner  was  originally<br \/>\nappointed as Project Officer in PERC on 10.4.1987 and thereafter, appointed as<br \/>\nAssistant Director on 5.8.1989, whereas the second respondent was appointed as<br \/>\nthe  Project Officer in Adult, Continuing Education &amp; Extension programme only<br \/>\nfrom 14.8.1989 and the post of Assistant Director is higher than  the  Project<br \/>\nOfficer carrying higher scale of pay is also not in dispute.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.3.  But, the controversy with regard to the date of absorption arose<br \/>\nonly  when  the  activities  of  the Adult, Continuing Education and Extension<br \/>\nprogramme,   which    was    initially    functioning    under    the    third<br \/>\nrespondent-Commission,  got merged with the first respondent-University in the<br \/>\ndepartment of Adult and Continuing Education much earlier i.e.    on  1.4.1990<br \/>\nwhereas  that  of the Population Education Resource Centre got transferred and<br \/>\nmerged with the first respondent-University under the department of Adult  and<br \/>\nContinuing Education only on 1.4.1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.4.   The  service  rendered  in  work charge establishment cannot be<br \/>\ntaken into account for seniority in regular establishment  and  the  seniority<br \/>\nhas  to  be  determined only on the basis of the date of absorption in regular<br \/>\nestablishment,  as  held  by  the  Apex  Court  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/406228\/\">State  of  Maharashtra  v.<br \/>\nPurshottam,<\/a> reported in (1996) 9 SCC 266.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.5.  Even though both the petitioner and the second respondent worked<br \/>\nunder  two different schemes of the third respondent-Commission, but under the<br \/>\nsame department viz., Adult and Continuing Education,  the  second  respondent<br \/>\ngot absorbed under the first respondent much earlier viz., 1.4.1990, while the<br \/>\npetitioner  got  absorbed as an employee of the first respondent-University at<br \/>\nlater point of time namely 1.4.19 97.  Of course, it is too difficult to  deem<br \/>\nthat  the  PERC  got  transferred  and  merged  along with the incumbents much<br \/>\nearlier  than  1.4.199  7,  as  it  was  continued  to  be  under  the   third<br \/>\nrespondent-Commission till  then.  But, the service rendered by the petitioner<br \/>\nin PERC under the third respondent-Commission cannot be ignored totally, which<br \/>\nnecessitated this Court to take note of the fact that the  period  of  service<br \/>\nrendered by the petitioner in his capacity as Assistant Director in the parent<br \/>\ndepartment   viz.,   Adult   and   Continuing   Education   under   the  third<br \/>\nrespondent-Commission,  is  to  be  taken  into  account  when  the  PERC  got<br \/>\ntransferred  and merged with the first respondent-University, particularly the<br \/>\nposts held by the petitioner and the second respondent  are  distinguished  in<br \/>\nnature, rank as well as scale of pay.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.6.   In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that<br \/>\nthe question of fixing inter se seniority between the incumbents  holding  the<br \/>\npost  of  Assistant  Director  and that of the Project Officer does not arise,<br \/>\nwhich relevant criteria went unnoticed by the first respondent-University, has<br \/>\nnow created anomaly in the impugned proceedings  dated  2.9.2002.    When  the<br \/>\npetitioner  and  the  second  respondent  obviously  represent  two  different<br \/>\ncategories, the question of treating both of them similarly does not arise, as<br \/>\nit  amounts  to  treating  unequals  as  equals,  reflecting   discrimination,<br \/>\narbitrariness, and unreasonableness, attracting Article 14 of the Constitution<br \/>\nof India.   The first respondent-University is, therefore, obliged to strike a<br \/>\nbalance between interests of the petitioner,  who  was  holding  the  post  of<br \/>\nAssistant  Director in the PERC and the second respondent, who was holding the<br \/>\npost of Project Officer while roping them in the same department of the  first<br \/>\nrespondent-University.   Since this aspect was not taken into consideration by<br \/>\nthe Senate in the resolution dated 7.8.2002, I am inclined to  interfere  with<br \/>\nthe  impugned proceedings dated 2.9.2 002, quashing the same and remitting the<br \/>\nmatter to the Senate to take appropriate decision in accordance with the first<br \/>\nrespondentUniversity Regulations.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The writ petition is allowed with the above direction.  No costs.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\nIndex :  Yes\nInternet        :  Yes\n\nATR\n\n\n\nTo:\n\n\n1.  The Registrar,\nUniversity of Madras,\nChepauk, Chennai-600005.\n\n2.  The Secretary,\nUniversity Grants Commission,\nBahadur Shah Jaffar Marg,\nNew Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Dr.N.V.R.Kapali vs University Of Madras on 23 February, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23\/02\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN Writ Petition No.35286 of 2002 Dr.N.V.R.Kapali, 102, Venkatachala Mudali Street, Mylapore, Chennai-600004. .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. University of Madras, rep. by its Registrar, Chepauk, Chennai-600005. 2. Dr.Naseem Akthar, [&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-220939","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dr.N.V.R.Kapali vs University Of Madras on 23 February, 2004 - 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\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.N.V.R.Kapali vs University Of Madras on 23 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-17T04:09:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.N.V.R.Kapali vs University Of Madras on 23 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-17T04:09:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1496,\"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\\\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004\",\"name\":\"Dr.N.V.R.Kapali vs University Of Madras on 23 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-17T04:09:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.N.V.R.Kapali vs University Of Madras on 23 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Dr.N.V.R.Kapali vs University Of Madras on 23 February, 2004 - 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\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.N.V.R.Kapali vs University Of Madras on 23 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-17T04:09:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.N.V.R.Kapali vs University Of Madras on 23 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-17T04:09:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004"},"wordCount":1496,"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\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004","name":"Dr.N.V.R.Kapali vs University Of Madras on 23 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-17T04:09:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-n-v-r-kapali-vs-university-of-madras-on-23-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.N.V.R.Kapali vs University Of Madras on 23 February, 2004"}]},{"@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\/220939","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=220939"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220939\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}