{"id":232639,"date":"2011-10-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011"},"modified":"2014-06-19T02:36:38","modified_gmt":"2014-06-18T21:06:38","slug":"k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"K.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary on 31 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary on 31 October, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 31\/10\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)NO.11795 of 2011\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011\n\nK.Karuppasamy\t\t\t\t..  Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Secretary,\n   K.Natarajapillai Memorial\n    Madurai Pillaimar Sangam Higher\n    Secondary School,\n   Sammattipuram,\n   Madurai-625 010.\n2.The District Educational Officer,\n   Madurai.\t\t\t\t..  Respondents\n\n\n\tThis writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the\nConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the\nrespondents to allow the petitioner to be in continuous service on reemployment\nterms as B.T. Assistant till the end of academic year 2011-2012 ending on\n31.5.2012 and also to continue to pay the salary to the petitioner as applicable\nto the B.T. Assistant under reemployment terms till the end of academic year\n2011-2012 on 31.5.2012.\n\n!For Petitioner \t... Mr.K.Vellaiswamy\n^For Respondents  \t... Mr.M.E.Elango for R-1\n\t\t\t    Mr.M.Govindan, Spl.G.P. For R-2\n\n- - - -\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for  a<br \/>\ndirection to allow him to continue in service on reemployment as a Graduate<br \/>\nAssistant till the end of the academic year, i.e., on 31.5.2012 and to pay<br \/>\nsalary as applicable to the Graduate Teacher.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.In the writ petition when it came up for admission, notice was directed<br \/>\nto be issued to the respondents on 13.10.2011. This court also directed the<br \/>\npetitioner to continue in service till further orders and a direction was given<br \/>\nto the respondents to file counter. The first respondent has filed a vacate stay<br \/>\napplication in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 together with supporting counter affidavit<br \/>\nand also filed a typed set of papers in support of the averments in the counter<br \/>\naffidavit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.It is seen from the records that the petitioner joined the service as a<br \/>\nJunior Assistant in the year 1974. Subsequently, he was promoted as a Graduate<br \/>\nAssistant on 4.6.2004. During his tenure, he also got appreciation certificate<br \/>\nfor 100% pass in the Science subject for the academic year 2007-2008. In the<br \/>\nScience subject handled by him, the students had secured 100% pass. He reached<br \/>\nthe age of superannuation on completing 58 years of age on 31.10.2011. As per<br \/>\nthe order of the Government, he is eligible for reemployment till the end of the<br \/>\nacademic year 2011-2012 ending on 31.5.2012. The petitioner made a<br \/>\nrepresentation, dated 23.6.2011 requesting permission to continue him in service<br \/>\ntill the end of academic year. A further representation was also made on<br \/>\n6.9.2011. He also enclosed the medical fitness certificate by a further letter<br \/>\ndated 02.10.2011. Since there was no response from the first respondent, he has<br \/>\nfiled the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it was stated<br \/>\nthat the 9th standard students had secured low marks during April, 2007 and he<br \/>\nwas given a show cause notice. During 2009-2010, the school had produced only<br \/>\n88% pass in 10th standard. When enquired about the law percentage marks, the<br \/>\npetitioner had abused the Headmaster in front of other staff. But, no further<br \/>\naction was taken. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that on 31.10.2011,<br \/>\nthe management allowed him to retire and there was no proceedings pending on the<br \/>\npetitioner. It was contended that the School Committee meeting was held on<br \/>\n10.10.2011 and it was decided unanimously to  reject the petitioner&#8217;s request.<br \/>\nThe decision of the committee was also sent to the petitioner by a registered<br \/>\npost.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The typed set produced by the first respondent showed that the school<br \/>\ncommittee in their resolution had relied upon a letter, dated 20.4.2007 (4 years<br \/>\nago), in which an explanation was called for and the petitioner had agreed to<br \/>\nimprove his performance. Similarly, in 2009-2010, there was actually 88% pass in<br \/>\nthe 10th standard and also as the petitioner had misbehaved with the Headmaster,<br \/>\nhis conduct was not good. Hence it was decided not to grant him extension of<br \/>\nservice. These facts were also communicated by a letter dated 11.10.2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.But, however the grant of reemployment is conceived by the Government<br \/>\nonly in the interest of students. If a teacher retires during the middle of the<br \/>\nacademic year, the academic continuity may be lost, which may directly affect<br \/>\nthe performance of students. The relevant Government Order which is enforceable<br \/>\nstipulated two conditions, i.e. (a) there must be physical fitness and (b) the<br \/>\nconduct and character must be good.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.In the present case, the petitioner has given medical certificate about<br \/>\nhis fitness and there is no dispute about the same. The question that his<br \/>\ncharacter not being good so as to grant him reemployment cannot be accepted as<br \/>\nthere was no proceedings initiated against the petitioner at the relevant time<br \/>\nand no penalty was imposed on him. The management cannot rely on the show cause<br \/>\nnotice which was issued four years before. Further relying upon some<br \/>\nunsubstantial allegations that he had abused the Headmaster in the presence of<br \/>\nothers and relying on some contemporaneous records that his conduct was not good<br \/>\ncannot be accepted. Further,  the reasons cannot be informed at the tail end of<br \/>\nhis service, especially considering that the petitioner has been working in the<br \/>\nschool for the last 37 years. This question is no longer res integra.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.This Court in G.Menaka Vs. The Chief Educational Officer, Chennai and<br \/>\nothers in W.P.No.14014 of 2009, dated 20.7.2011 in paragraphs 16 to 18 had<br \/>\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;16.Thus, the matter is before this Court for final disposal.  Mr.R.Yashod<br \/>\nVardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the<br \/>\nquestion relating to the right of the teachers for having re-employment benefits<br \/>\ngranted as per the Government Orders and also whether the Management can plead<br \/>\nthat the conduct and character of the teacher were not satisfactory at the tail<br \/>\nend of the service came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this<br \/>\nCourt in W.A.No.1179 of 1993 and batch cases in <a href=\"\/doc\/501494\/\">S.Sundaram v. The Secretary,<br \/>\nC.S.I.Diocese of Madras, Madras<\/a> -86, dated 06.09.1994.  The Division Bench, in<br \/>\nparagraph 11 and 16 observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;11. &#8230; It is the very same teacher who has been selected by the private<br \/>\nmanagement and continued in their service upto the age of superannuation and has<br \/>\nbeen found fit for further continuation, is directed to be re-employed in order<br \/>\nto ensure that the benefit of their service is available to the students during<br \/>\nthe rest of the academic year.  The Government Order serves a great purpose,<br \/>\nbecause a new teacher who would be recruited during the middle of the academic<br \/>\nyear, would not be able to immediately assess the standard of the class and also<br \/>\nthe ability of each of the students in the class and it is possible that the<br \/>\nrest of the academic year would be lost in getting to know the same time which<br \/>\nis necessary for proper teaching. As a result of new appointment in the middle<br \/>\nof the academic year, the students will be deprived of the benefit of teaching<br \/>\nby the old and experienced teacher during the rest of the academic year which<br \/>\nmay affect their performance in the examinations to be held at the end of the<br \/>\nacademic year and it would also tell upon the standards and the results of the<br \/>\nexaminations of the students.\n<\/p>\n<p>16. &#8230;It is only on re-employment with a view to ensure continuity of the<br \/>\nbenefit of teaching by the teachers who attain the age of superannuation during<br \/>\nthe middle of the year, for the rest of the academic year.  Therefore, the<br \/>\nmeasure itself is for a short period till the end of the academic year<br \/>\napplicable to such of the teachers who retire during the academic year. It does<br \/>\nnot take away the right of the Management to fill up the said post by<br \/>\nrecruitment at the end of the academic year.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>With these above observation, the Division Bench held that the measure of re-<br \/>\nemployment as introduced by the Government Order is applicable even to minority<br \/>\ninstitutions having protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. In the very same case, on behalf of some other school management, it<br \/>\nwas pleaded that the teacher who was before the Court and whose character and<br \/>\nconduct was not satisfactory, the Division Bench observed in Paragraph 17, which<br \/>\nis as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;17.  &#8230;It has been stated that after due consideration, it was decided by the<br \/>\nCommittee not to re-appoint him from 1.09.1993 in view of his work and conduct<br \/>\nnot being satisfactory. This decision, in our view, has been taken without<br \/>\nlooking into the records of the teacher. The petitioner has produced merit<br \/>\ncertificates issued to him by the very same Management at pages 35 to 40 which<br \/>\ncover the period upto March, 1992, whereas he attained the age of superannuation<br \/>\nin August, 1993.  These merit certificates are not disputed.  As far as the<br \/>\nconduct is concerned, no material is put forth. &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. Therefore, in the light of the above, the learned Senior Counsel<br \/>\nsubmitted that the grounds urged by the third respondent after the age of<br \/>\nretirement of the petitioner cannot be taken into account and they were invented<br \/>\nfor the purpose of denying her the right of re-employment.  A similar contention<br \/>\nthat the appointment of the successor will be delayed if re-employment is<br \/>\ngranted to the petitioner as pleaded in the counter affidavit was rejected by<br \/>\nthe Division Bench in Sundaram&#8217;s Case (cited supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand allowed. The<br \/>\nrespondents are directed to continue the service of the petitioner till<br \/>\n31.5.2012 and claim salary for the said period from the Government grant and pay<br \/>\nit to the petitioner without fail. No costs. Consequently connected<br \/>\nmiscellaneous petitions stand closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>vvk<br \/>\nTo<br \/>\nThe District Educational Officer,<br \/>\nMadurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary on 31 October, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31\/10\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)NO.11795 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 K.Karuppasamy .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary, K.Natarajapillai Memorial Madurai Pillaimar Sangam Higher Secondary School, Sammattipuram, Madurai-625 010. 2.The District Educational [&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-232639","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>K.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary on 31 October, 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\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary on 31 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-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=\"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-18T21:06:38+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\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary on 31 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-18T21:06:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1455,\"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\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011\",\"name\":\"K.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary on 31 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-18T21:06:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary on 31 October, 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":"K.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary on 31 October, 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\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary on 31 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-18T21:06:38+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\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary on 31 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-18T21:06:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011"},"wordCount":1455,"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\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011","name":"K.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary on 31 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-18T21:06:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-karuppasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-31-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary on 31 October, 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\/232639","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=232639"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232639\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232639"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232639"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232639"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}