{"id":2236,"date":"2011-08-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-05-12T17:40:27","modified_gmt":"2018-05-12T12:10:27","slug":"n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"N.Kanthimathi vs The Secretary To Government on 17 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">N.Kanthimathi vs The Secretary To Government on 17 August, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 17\/08\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR\n\nW.P.(MD) No.8877 of 2011\nand\nM.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011\n\nN.Kanthimathi\t\t\t \t  ... Petitioner\n\t\t\t\t\nVs.\n\n1.The Secretary to Government,\n   Hindu Religious and Charitable\n   Endowments Administration\n   Department, Secretariat,\n   Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.\n\n2.The Commissioner,\n    Hindu Religious and Charitable\n    Endowments Administration\n    Department, Nungambakkam,\n    Chennai - 600 034.\n\n3.The Secretary,\n    Tamil Nadu Public Service\n    Commission, NO.1, Greams\n    Road,  (Commercial Tax Building\n    Annexe), Chennai - 600 006.\t    \t...  Respondents\n\n\tPetitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for\na Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to select the petitioner to\nthe post of Executive Officer Grade IV in Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and\nCharitable Endowments Administration Department by operating the reserve list\n2008-2009 and consequently, direct the respondents 1 &amp; 2 to appoint the\npetitioner to the post of Executive Officer Grade IV in the Tamil Nadu Hindu\nReligious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department in the Tamil Nadu\nHindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Subordinate Service included in Group\nVIII Service, 2008-2009.\n\n!For petitioner \t\t..   Mr.T.Selvan\n^For respondents 1 and 2\t..  Mr.B.Pugalenthi,\n\t\t\t   \t    Special Government Pleader\nFor 3rd respondent\t\t.. Mr.S.P.Maharajan\n\n\n:ORDER\t\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tMandamus sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the<br \/>\nSecretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai, to select the<br \/>\npetitioner for the post of Executive Officer Grade IV in Tamil Nadu Hindu<br \/>\nReligious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department by operating the<br \/>\nreserve list and for a consequential direction, directing the respondents 1 &amp; 2<br \/>\nto appoint the petitioner to the said post.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the notification for<br \/>\nfilling up of 47 vacancies of the Executive Officers Grade-IV posts in Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, for<br \/>\nthe year 2008-2009, the petitioner completed two stages of selection viz.,<br \/>\nwritten examination and oral test, successfully with registration No.02602095. A<br \/>\nprovisional list was published on 02.06.2010, wherein 40 candidates were<br \/>\nselected and  results of seven candidates were withheld.  Though the petitioner<br \/>\nwas not included in the list of selected candidates, she was placed in the<br \/>\nreserved list, at serial No.1 in three categories viz., General Turn (Women),<br \/>\nBackward Class (other than BC Muslims) (Women) &amp; Backward Class (other than BC<br \/>\nMuslim) (DW).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.According to the petitioner, the candidates placed in the reserve list<br \/>\nwould be considered for selection against the vacancies caused in the respective<br \/>\ncategories, due to any one of the following reasons; (i) Non joining of<br \/>\nselected candidates; (ii) selected candidates who joined duty, but left<br \/>\nthereafter; (iii) cancellation of provisional selection of the selected<br \/>\ncandidates.  It is her further submission that the reserved list, which is<br \/>\nprepared by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, would be valid till the<br \/>\ndrawal of the next selection list for the said post, by the Commission.  It is<br \/>\nher further contention that when she sought for the following informations under<br \/>\nthe Right to Information Act, (i) as to how many candidates were selected for<br \/>\nthe post; (ii)as to how many persons left, after joining the post; (iii) as to<br \/>\nhow many post are vacant subsequently; and (iv) as to the position of the<br \/>\npetitioner, reply was given by the Commissioner to the petitioner that ten posts<br \/>\nare vacant due to non joining, by the selected candidates.   The petitioner,<br \/>\nafter receiving the information under the Right to Information Act,  made a<br \/>\nrepresentation, dated 01.07.2011, to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,<br \/>\nto select and appoint her, to the post of the Executive Officer (Grade IV) by<br \/>\noperating the reserve list of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable<br \/>\nEndowments Subordinate Service, conducted for the year 2008-2009.  It is her<br \/>\nfurther contention that the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable<br \/>\nEndowments Administration Department, Chennai, the second respondent herein, by<br \/>\nhis proceedings, dated 19.07.2011, has also informed the petitioner about the<br \/>\nvacancies, in each category.   According to the petitioner, since her name<br \/>\nfigures at serial No.1 in  three categories viz., General Turn (Women), Backward<br \/>\nClass (other than BC Muslims) (Women) &amp; Backward Class (other than BC Muslim)<br \/>\n(DW), she is eligible to be accommodated as against the vacancies.  Though<br \/>\nseveral representations have been made to the Commission, no steps have been<br \/>\ntaken to operate the reserve list as per the regulations.  Hence, the petitioner<br \/>\nhas come forward with the present writ petition, for the relief stated supra.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.When the matter came up for hearing,  on instructions from the Under<br \/>\nSecretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,  Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned<br \/>\ncounsel submitted that in the examination conducted by the Commission for<br \/>\nrecruitment to the post of Executive Officer, Group IV, in the Tamil Nadu Hindu<br \/>\nReligious and Charitable Endowment Administration  Department, in  Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nHindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Subordinate Service, for the year<br \/>\n2008-2009, the petitioner did not reach the zone of consideration for the above<br \/>\nsaid post.  However, she was placed in the reserve list against serial No.1 in<br \/>\nthree categories viz., General Turn (Women), Backward Class (other than BC<br \/>\nMuslims) (Women) &amp; Backward Class (other than BC Muslim) (DW), drawn from the<br \/>\nabove recruitment.  He further submitted that necessary action is being taken to<br \/>\nallot suitable candidates from the reserve list and  the relevant file has been<br \/>\nsubmitted to the Commission, for its order in the matter.  The submission of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, based on the<br \/>\nletter No.4321\/LCD-C1\/2011, dated  nil.08.2011, is placed on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials<br \/>\navailable on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.As the commission itself has now admitted that the petitioner has been<br \/>\nplaced in the reserve list against serial No.1 in  General Turn (Women),<br \/>\nBackward Class (other than BC Muslims) (Women) &amp; Backward Class (other than BC<br \/>\nMuslim) (DW),  categories, this Court deems it fit not to refer to the other<br \/>\ndetails, stated supra.  Suffice to consider as to whether the petitioner has<br \/>\nmade out a case for issuance of mandamus.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.The contention of the petitioner that there are ten vacancies in the<br \/>\npost of Executive Officer (Grade IV)  is fortified by the proceedings  in<br \/>\nR.C.No.34114\/10\/L4\/dated 10.01.2011, addressed to  the Secretary to Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nPublic Service Commission, wherein the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and<br \/>\nCharitable Endowment Department, Chennai, has requested the Tamil Nadu Public<br \/>\nService Commission to allot suitable candidates for the post of Grade IV,<br \/>\nExecutive Officer in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments<br \/>\nSubordinate Service, for the year 2008-2009.  Perusal of the letter,<\/p>\n<p>dated 10.01.2011, shows that in the examination conducted by the Commission,<br \/>\nsome of them, who had been selected for  Grade IV, Executive Officer posts, were<br \/>\nalso selected for Grade III posts and that they have joined in Grade III posts<br \/>\nand consequently, there are ten vacancies in Grade IV, in various communal<br \/>\ncategories.  The details of the vacancies in the communal categories mentioned<br \/>\nin the letter, dated 10.01.2011, of the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and<br \/>\nCharitable Endowments Department, are as follows;\n<\/p>\n<pre>S.\tRotation\tRound\tName \t\t  Date of Birth    The date of\nNo.\t\t\t\tThiru\/Tmt.\/ Selvi and Educational  joining in Grade III\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  qualification\t   Executive Officer post in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  \t\t   the department\n1\t2nd round\tSC (A)   M.Sudha\t  16.5.83\t   1.7.10   FN\t\n\t\t\t(W) (DW)\t\t   B.A.\n\n\n2\t3rd round\tMBC\/DC\t M.Maadu\t  15.4.74\t   1.7.10   FN\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  B.Sc.\n\n3\t13th round\tMBC\/DC\t P.Sivaraj\t  2.6.83\t   1.7.10   FN\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  B.Com.,\n\n4\t16th round\tSC\t G.Prakash\t  25.2.83\t   1.7.10   FN\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  B.A., M.A.,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  M.L.,\n\n5\t18th round\tBC (OBCM)M.Banumathi \t  2.10.81\t   1.7.10   FN\n\t\t\t(W)\t\t\t  M.Sc., B.Sc.\n\n6\t19th round\tGT (W)\t P.Janaki\t  16.7.81\t   1.7.10   FN\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  M.Sc., B.Sc.\n\n7\t24th round\tBC (OBCM)T.Maruthachalam  10.4.76\t   1.7.10   FN\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  M.Com., B.Com.,\n\n8\t34th round\tBC (OBCM)K.Bharathiraja\t  19.3.1981\t   1.7.10   FN\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  M.L.,\n\n9\t42th round\tSC\t G.Kaniraj\t  11.6.79\t   1.7.10   FN\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  M.L.,\n\n10\t43rd round\tMBC\/DE(W)M.Amirtha\t  3.5.79\t   1.7.10   FN\n\t\t\t\t\t          BPT., MA.,\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t8.While forwarding the above said  details, the Commissioner, Hindu<br \/>\nReligious and Charitable Endowment, Chennai, has also requested the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nPublic Service Commission, to delete the above said persons from the list of<br \/>\nselected candidates for the post of Grade IV Executive Officers, and<br \/>\nconsequently, select persons from the reserve list and forward the same.  Women<br \/>\nvacancies are also mentioned in the letter, dated 10.01.2011, in General Turn<br \/>\n(Women) and Backward Class  (other than BC Muslim) (Women).  In such<br \/>\ncircumstances, when a request has been made by the appointing authority, it is<br \/>\nobligatory on the part of the Commission to forward the names from the reserve<br \/>\nlist.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.<a href=\"\/doc\/23341\/\">In Secretary, T.N.P.S.C., v. R.Nagarajan<\/a> reported in 2008 (6) MLJ 1259<br \/>\n(Mad-NOC) = 2008 (3) LW 222 and Dr.D.Karal v. State of T.N., reported in 2009<br \/>\n(1) MLJ 1259.  In R.Nagarajan&#8217;s case (stated supra), TNPSC has invited<br \/>\napplications for the post of Additional Public Prosecutor.  Respondents therein<br \/>\nwere placed in the reserve list.  When three candidates joined and subsequently<br \/>\nleft, the question came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge,<br \/>\nwas whether the persons in the reserve list should be appointed.  The learned<br \/>\nsingle Judge has directed the State and TNPSC to appoint the petitioners therein<br \/>\nin the reserve list for those vacancies.  The State did not appeal, but TNPSC<br \/>\nappealed.  The Division Bench, after considering the submissions made on either<br \/>\nside, held that,<br \/>\n\t&#8220;Though Rule 10(a)(i) of the T.N. State and Subordinate Service Rules,<br \/>\nprovides for allotment from the reserve list for the vacancy in the place of<br \/>\nthose who have not joined duty, it cannot be strictly interpreted so as to<br \/>\nexclude resultant vacancies caused due to candidates joined and subsequently<br \/>\nleft\/resigned.  No doubt a candidate has indefeasible right to be appointed to<br \/>\nthe post, but when the petitioners had been placed in the reserve list, it is a<br \/>\nfallacy to claim that they cannot be appointed in the resultant vacancies.  If<br \/>\nthe stand taken by the Commission is to be accepted, the expression &#8220;such<br \/>\nreserve list will be in force&#8230;&#8230; until the drawal of next selected list by<br \/>\nthe Commission&#8221; would defeat the intention of the legislature.  A meaningful<br \/>\ninterpretation of the rule would subserve the interest of the public.  The<br \/>\nsubsequent amendment to the rule would also confirm this interpretation.  The<br \/>\nAppointing Authority, the State has not preferred any appeal but the Service<br \/>\nCommission has.  The duty of the Public Service Commission is only to make<br \/>\navailable to the State a complete list of qualified candidates arranged in order<br \/>\nof merit.  It is for the State to make appointments accordingly.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.In Dr.D.Karal&#8217;s case (cited supra), the question came up for<br \/>\nconsideration again was that whether the waiting list\/reserve list candidates<br \/>\nare having any right to demand posting, if the selected candidates failed to<br \/>\njoin duty for any reason.  In the above case, selection was made for the post of<br \/>\nAssistant Surgeon (Dental) for the year 2003-05.  Out of 39 vacancies notified,<br \/>\n14 vacancies were not filled up, on account of non-joining of candidates within<br \/>\nthe prescribed period of 30 days.  A fresh advertisement for selection of<br \/>\nAssistant Surgeon (Dental) was made on 05.04.2007, for 16 vacancies.  The fresh<br \/>\nadvertisement was challenged by the writ petitioner therein, contending inter<br \/>\nalia that when the reserve list was drawn, the same ought to have been operated<br \/>\nby TNPSC.  Per contra, the Commission by filing a counter affidavit, contended<br \/>\nthat mere inclusion in the reserve list would not confer any right to the<br \/>\nselected candidates for appointment to the posts and the reserve list could be<br \/>\noperated until the drawal of regular list.  Considering the rival submissions,<br \/>\nthe learned single Judge, at Paragraph 9, held as follows:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;9. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents are also not<br \/>\njustified in contending that merely because the petitioner&#8217;s names were included<br \/>\nin the reserve list, the same will not confer any right to them.  It is an<br \/>\nadmitted fact that the petitioners are placed in the reserve\/waiting list.  As<br \/>\nper the statutory proviso to Rule 10(a)(i) of the State and Subordinate Service<br \/>\nRules, the reserve list candidates have a right to get appointed, if the<br \/>\nselected candidates failed to join duty in time by one reason or the other.  The<br \/>\nrights of the reserve list candidates get crystalised the moment the last date<br \/>\nfor reporting to duty of the selected candidates are deemed to be selected in<br \/>\nthe resultant vacancies by operation of law and as such they will get an<br \/>\nindefeasible right.  It is the legal obligation of the respondents to issue<br \/>\nappointment orders to the reserve list candidates.  The non-communication of the<br \/>\nvacancy position by the Department in time to the second respondent will not<br \/>\naffect the accrued right of the reserve list candidates.  If the respondents<br \/>\nfail to discharge their statutory obligation, the petitioners have got every<br \/>\nright to seek appointment on the basis of the availability of vacancies due to<br \/>\nnon-joining of the selected candidates.  The petitioners&#8217; right to get selected<br \/>\ncannot be allowed to be defeated by the inaction of the respondents.  If the<br \/>\nsame is permitted, the respondents can defeat the rights of the reserve listed<br \/>\ncandidates though the selected candidates failed to join in time, which is to be<br \/>\ntreated  as arbitrary and capricious and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.  Thus, the second respondent is bound to release the<br \/>\npetitioners&#8217; names for appointment in the vacant posts, which arose due to non-<br \/>\njoining of the selected candidates.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The decision made in <a href=\"\/doc\/23341\/\">Secretary, T.N.P.S.C., v. R.Nagarajan<\/a> reported in 2008 (6)<br \/>\nMLJ 1259 (Mad-NOC) has been relied.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.Facts of this case are squarely applicable to the decisions of this<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/23341\/\">Secretary, T.N.P.S.C., v. R.Nagarajan<\/a> reported in 2008 (6) MLJ 1259<br \/>\n(Mad-NOC) = 2008 (3) LW 222 and Dr.D.Karal v. State of T.N., reported in 2009<br \/>\n(1) MLJ 1259.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.In such circumstances, a mandamus is issued to the Tamil Nadu Public<br \/>\nService Commission to release the reserve list, insofar as the petitioner is<br \/>\nconcerned, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of<br \/>\nthis order and on receipt of the communication from the Commission, the<br \/>\nCommissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai,<br \/>\nthe second respondent herein, shall issue necessary appointment orders to the<br \/>\npetitioner, immediately, subject to satisfying other requirements under the<br \/>\nrecruitment rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed.  No costs.  Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>gcg<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n   Hindu Religious and Charitable<br \/>\n   Endowments Administration<br \/>\n   Department, Secretariat,<br \/>\n   Fort St. George, Chennai &#8211; 600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Commissioner,<br \/>\n    Hindu Religious and Charitable<br \/>\n    Endowments Administration Department,<br \/>\n     Nungambakkam,   Chennai &#8211; 600 034.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Secretary,<br \/>\n    Tamil Nadu Public Service<br \/>\n    Commission, NO.1, Greams<br \/>\n    Road,  (Commercial Tax Building<br \/>\n    Annexe), Chennai &#8211; 600 006.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court N.Kanthimathi vs The Secretary To Government on 17 August, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17\/08\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD) No.8877 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 N.Kanthimathi &#8230; Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, [&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-2236","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>N.Kanthimathi vs The Secretary To Government on 17 August, 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\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.Kanthimathi vs The Secretary To Government on 17 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-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=\"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-12T12:10:27+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.Kanthimathi vs The Secretary To Government on 17 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-12T12:10:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2103,\"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\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011\",\"name\":\"N.Kanthimathi vs The Secretary To Government on 17 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-12T12:10:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.Kanthimathi vs The Secretary To Government on 17 August, 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":"N.Kanthimathi vs The Secretary To Government on 17 August, 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\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.Kanthimathi vs The Secretary To Government on 17 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-12T12:10:27+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.Kanthimathi vs The Secretary To Government on 17 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-12T12:10:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011"},"wordCount":2103,"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\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011","name":"N.Kanthimathi vs The Secretary To Government on 17 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-12T12:10:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-kanthimathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.Kanthimathi vs The Secretary To Government on 17 August, 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\/2236","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=2236"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2236\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2236"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}