{"id":234095,"date":"2006-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006"},"modified":"2018-03-31T14:35:22","modified_gmt":"2018-03-31T09:05:22","slug":"m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006","title":{"rendered":"M.Meenakshisundaram vs The Registrar on 18 January, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.Meenakshisundaram vs The Registrar on 18 January, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 18\/01\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA       \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN             \n\nW.P.No.34581 of 2003  \n\n\nM.Meenakshisundaram            ..                   Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Registrar\n    Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal\n    Chennai.\n\n2. The District Revenue Officer\n    Ramanathapuram. \n\n3. The Revenue Divisional Officer\n    Ramanathapuram Revenue Division  \n    Ramanathapuram. \n\n4. The Tahsildar\n    Thiruvadanai Taluk\n    Ramanathapuram Revenue Division  \n    Ramanathapuram.                     ..               Respondents\n\n        PRAYER:   Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia for the issue of a writ  of  Certiorarified  Mandamus  calling  for  the\nrecords  relating  to order in Na.Ka.E1\/28975\/92 dated 20.3.1992 of the second\nrespondent and the impugned order dated 29.9.2003  passed  in  O.A.No.2878  of\n1992  by  the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Chennai, to quash the same\nand to consequently direct the respondents to regularise the  service  of  the\npetitioner  with  effect from his date of appointment, i.e., 21.1.1994 and pay\nannual increments and other benefits with effect from 21.1.1994.\n\n!For petitioner                         :       Mr.K.Lavan\n\n^For respondents-2 to 4                 :       Mr.S.Gomathy Nayagam\n                                                Special Government Pleader\n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The writ petition is filed praying for a  Certiorarified  Mandamus  to<br \/>\nquash  the order of the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram, confirmed by<br \/>\nthe Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2878 of 199 2 by order  dated<br \/>\n29.9.2003  and  to  direct  the  respondents to regularise the services of the<br \/>\npetitioner from the date of appointment on 21.1 .1994 with  all  consequential<br \/>\nbenefits from thereon.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The writ petitioner was originally appointed as Karnam on 12.12.1<br \/>\n977 by way of temporary appointment for Velanadu Group for a period  of  three<br \/>\nmonths with  effect  from 12.12.1997.  The appointment was thereafter extended<br \/>\nunder  orders  dated  27.5.1978  for  a   further   period   upto   31.5.1978.<br \/>\nThereafterwards,  by  order  dated 8.6.1978, the petitioner&#8217;s services was not<br \/>\nextended, but was relieved on and from 31.5.1978 .   It  is  stated  that  the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner  obtained  a  certificate  of  Karnam&#8217;s survey training as early as<br \/>\n1979, and even on the date of initial appointment temporarily as a Karnam,  he<br \/>\nhad passed the Pre-University Certificate in the year 1969 itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The  hereditary  system  of village administration by the Village<br \/>\nMunsif and Village Karnam was abolished in Ordinance 14\/80,  followed  by  the<br \/>\nAct.   With  the  result, on and from 14.11.1980, the old system of hereditary<br \/>\nVillage Karnam and Village Munsif post was abolished and all  holders  of  the<br \/>\npost were  relieved  thereon.  The validity of the ordinance was upheld by the<br \/>\nHigh Court and Supreme Court.  However, an undertaking was given on behalf  of<br \/>\nthe  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  before the Supreme Court that all Ex-Village<br \/>\nOfficials who had been holding the office as on 14.11.1980 and  had  lost  the<br \/>\njob  on  account  of  the  ordinance  would  be  given  appointment as Village<br \/>\nAdministrative Officers in the new set up, provided, they  had  the  requisite<br \/>\nminimum  general  educational  qualification  and  had not attained the age of<br \/>\nsuperannuation.  It is stated by the petitioner that since he  had  worked  in<br \/>\nthe leave vacancies as Karnam even prior to the introduction of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nAbolition of part-time Village Officers Act, 1981, he was called for interview<br \/>\nby the  Collector  of  Ramanathapuram  through his letter dated 9.7.1991.  The<br \/>\npetitioner  was  the  successful  candidate  and  was  appointed  as   Village<br \/>\nAdministrative  Officer  of  Veeravanur  Group,  Paramakudi Taluk, under order<br \/>\ndated 2.8.1991 by  the  Revenue  Divisional  Officer,  Ramanathapuram  Revenue<br \/>\nDistrict, Ramanathapuram, the third respondent in the writ petition.  However,<br \/>\nthe  services of the petitioner was terminated under orders dated 20.3.1992 by<br \/>\nthe second respondent, namely, the District Revenue  Officer,  Ramanathapuram.<br \/>\nThe  order  of the second respondent, however, stated that the services of the<br \/>\npetitioner appointed temporarily was terminated as per Rule  10(a)(i)  of  the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu  Subordinate Service (General) Rules.  Aggrieved of the termination<br \/>\nwithout  assigning  any  reason,  the  petitioner   moved   the   Tamil   Nadu<br \/>\nAdministrative  Tribunal in O.A.No.2878 of 1992, praying for an order to quash<br \/>\nthe second respondent&#8217;s order of termination and to direct the respondents  to<br \/>\nappoint the  petitioner  in  any  of the vacancies under their control.  By an<br \/>\ninterim order dated 19.5.1993,  the  Tribunal  directed  that  if  there  were<br \/>\nvacancies  available and persons similarly placed and junior to the petitioner<br \/>\nwere appointed and continuing in  the  post,  then  the  petitioner  could  be<br \/>\nappointed in  any one of the vacancies temporarily.  By order dated 21.1.1994,<br \/>\nonce again the third respondent herein appointed  the  petitioner  as  Village<br \/>\nAdministrative  Officer  in  Pullur  Group, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram<br \/>\nDistrict.  Ultimately,  by  order  dated  29.9.2003,  the  Tribunal,  however,<br \/>\ndismissed O.A.No.2878 of 1992, taking a view that the petitioner had not acted<br \/>\nas  Village  Munsif  even  for a single day, though the petitioner had claimed<br \/>\nthat he had passed the Karnam test and  hence  eligible  to  be  appointed  as<br \/>\nVillage  Karnam or Village Munsif, it was not a ground to grant the petitioner<br \/>\nthe appointment as per the new Government Order.  Consequently, it  held  that<br \/>\nthe  appointment given was a wrong order which had been set right correctly by<br \/>\nthe third respondent herein.    Aggrieved  of  the  said  view  taken  by  the<br \/>\nTribunal,  the petitioner has preferred this writ petition contending that the<br \/>\norder  of  termination  was  unreasonable  and  contrary  to   Clause   3   of<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.954,  Revenue  Department dated 16.10.1997, which provided that even<br \/>\ntemporary Part-time Village Officers who had worked for a short  period  prior<br \/>\nto  14.11.1980  possessing  the required minimum qualification should be given<br \/>\nappointment in any existing or future vacancy as per seniority.   The  minimum<br \/>\neducational qualification  required  was  a  pass in S.S.L.C.  examination and<br \/>\nthose Village Officers who held office on  14.11.1980  should  have  at  least<br \/>\nsubsequently   passed   this   examination   as  per  G.O.Ms.No.1287,  Revenue<br \/>\nDepartment, dated 6.7.1988 and  sponsored  through  the  employment  exchange.<br \/>\nConsidering  the  fact  that the petitioner, even as early as 1969, had passed<br \/>\nthe Pre-University Examination and had worked  as  a  Karnam  on  a  temporary<br \/>\nbasis,  the  petitioner ought to have been considered for regular appointment.<br \/>\nThe petitioner also submitted that similarly situated persons who were  junior<br \/>\nto  the petitioner were appointed as Village Administrative Officers and their<br \/>\nservices were regularised subsequently; hence, the action  taken  against  the<br \/>\npetitioner was arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   On going through G.O.Ms.No.954, Revenue Department dated 16.10.19<br \/>\n97, it is clear that the claims of temporary Village Officers who  had  worked<br \/>\nfor  a  short  period  prior  to  14.11.1980  was considered by the Government<br \/>\nfavourably to take them for appointment as Village Administrative Officers  in<br \/>\nthe  vacancies  available  on  certain priority basis, firstly to consider the<br \/>\nclaims of those Part-time Village Officers who held office on 14.11 .1980  and<br \/>\nwere  fully  qualified  in  the  light  of  the  memorandum  submitted  by the<br \/>\nGovernment before  the  Supreme  Court;  thereafter  those  Part-time  Village<br \/>\nOfficers  who  held  office on 14.11.1980 and had subsequently passed S.S.L.C.<br \/>\nexamination  for  temporary  appointment  as   per   G.O.Ms.No.1287,   Revenue<br \/>\nDepartment  dated 6.7.1988 on being sponsored through employment exchange; and<br \/>\nlastly, after exhausting these two categories, to consider the claims  of  the<br \/>\napplicants  who  were not in service on 14.11.1980 but had worked as Part-time<br \/>\nVillage Officers for  a  short  period  prior  to  14.11.1980,  if  they  were<br \/>\notherwise  fully  qualified  to be given appointment in any existing or future<br \/>\nvacancy as per seniority maintained on the basis of their length  of  service.<br \/>\nThe  Government  Order  is  very specific that the Part-time Village Officers&#8217;<br \/>\nrequest should be favourably considered and accommodated against  the  present<br \/>\nor future vacancies.  A perusal of the documents filed before this Court shows<br \/>\nthat  the petitioner&#8217;s case fit in with the requirements stated in the last of<br \/>\nthe  priority  list  that  the  petitioner  had  the   requisite   educational<br \/>\nqualification he having passed the PreUniversity Certificate as early as 1969;<br \/>\nthat  he had been appointed temporarily as early as 1977 and the services were<br \/>\nextended till 31.5.1978 .  Considering the fact that he had  worked  part-time<br \/>\nas  a  Village  Officer  prior  to 14.11.1980, the grievance of the petitioner<br \/>\nmerits acceptance by this Court.  Apart from this, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner pointed out to the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative  Tribunal<br \/>\nin  O.A.Nos.1700 and 1701 of 1992 dated 13th January 2003, wherein, two of the<br \/>\nsimilarly placed candidates were considered for appointment by virtue of  this<br \/>\nGovernment Order.    In  the  context  of  such  positive action in respect of<br \/>\nsimilarly placed persons and particularly in the  context  of  the  petitioner<br \/>\npossessing  the requisite qualification as stated in the Government Order, the<br \/>\norder of the Tribunal that he had not acted as Village Munsif even for  a  day<br \/>\nis incorrect,  factually.  Equally so, even on the educational front, the view<br \/>\nof the Tribunal that there was no ground to grant appointment as per  the  new<br \/>\nGovernment  Order  runs contra to the terms of the very Government Order which<br \/>\nconsidered appointment  of  Part-time  Village  Officers  favourably.      The<br \/>\npetitioner has stated in Ground No.(v) that G.o.Ms.No.954 dated 16.10.1997 was<br \/>\nnot brought to the knowledge of the Tribunal, as per which, the petitioner was<br \/>\neligible to be appointed as Village Administrative Officer.  In the context of<br \/>\nthe  said  G.O.Ms.No.954  dated  1  6.10.1997,  the  petitioner,  having  thus<br \/>\nsatisfied the requirements in the Government Order, the  prayer  in  the  writ<br \/>\npetition deserves to be accepted and allowed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Consequently,  the  order of the Tribunal dated 29.9.2003 is set aside<br \/>\nand thereby, the order dated 20.3.1992 of the second respondent is  set  aside<br \/>\nand the  writ  petition  is  allowed.   The respondents are hereby directed to<br \/>\nregularise the services of the petitioner with effect from  the  date  of  his<br \/>\nappointment, namely,  21.1.1994  with  all  consequential benefits.  Connected<br \/>\nW.P.M.P.No.  42006 of 2003 is closed.  There will, however, be no order as  to<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>ksv<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Registrar<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal<br \/>\nChennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The District Revenue Officer<br \/>\nRamanathapuram.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Revenue Divisional Officer<br \/>\nRamanathapuram Revenue Division<br \/>\nRamanathapuram.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Tahsildar<br \/>\nThiruvadanai Taluk<br \/>\nRamanathapuram Revenue Division<br \/>\nRamanathapuram.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M.Meenakshisundaram vs The Registrar on 18 January, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18\/01\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA and THE HON&#8217;BLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN W.P.No.34581 of 2003 M.Meenakshisundaram .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Chennai. 2. The District Revenue Officer Ramanathapuram. 3. The [&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-234095","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>M.Meenakshisundaram vs The Registrar on 18 January, 2006 - 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\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Meenakshisundaram vs The Registrar on 18 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-31T09:05:22+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\\\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Meenakshisundaram vs The Registrar on 18 January, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-31T09:05:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1451,\"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\\\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006\",\"name\":\"M.Meenakshisundaram vs The Registrar on 18 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-31T09:05:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Meenakshisundaram vs The Registrar on 18 January, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"M.Meenakshisundaram vs The Registrar on 18 January, 2006 - 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\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Meenakshisundaram vs The Registrar on 18 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-31T09:05:22+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\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Meenakshisundaram vs The Registrar on 18 January, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-31T09:05:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006"},"wordCount":1451,"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\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006","name":"M.Meenakshisundaram vs The Registrar on 18 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-31T09:05:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-meenakshisundaram-vs-the-registrar-on-18-january-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Meenakshisundaram vs The Registrar on 18 January, 2006"}]},{"@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\/234095","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=234095"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234095\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}