{"id":237884,"date":"2006-02-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006"},"modified":"2017-05-26T00:10:26","modified_gmt":"2017-05-25T18:40:26","slug":"g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"G.R.Chitra vs The Director Of Elementary … on 28 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
G.R.Chitra vs The Director Of Elementary … on 28 February, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 28\/02\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI\n\n\nW.P.No.507 of 2005\nW.P.Nos.508,514,517,518,921,816,346 of 2005\nand\nW.P.M.P.Nos.495,876,496,505,509,508,876,775 and 326 of 2005 and\nW.V.M.P.Nos.335,336,337,343,338,339,334 and 333 of 2005\n\n\n\nG.R.Chitra \t  \t...\tPetitioner in W.P.No.507 of 2005\n\nP.S.Sivakala\t  \t...\tPetitioner in W.P.No.508 of 2005\n\nJ.K.Kumari Bindu \t...\tPetitioner in W.P.No.514 of 2005\n\nR.Ambly\t\t  \t...\tPetitioner in W.P.No.517 of 2005\n\nS.Meenakumari\t  \t...\tPetitioner in W.P.No.518 of 2005\n\nS.Sandhia\t\t...\tPetitioner in W.P.No.921 of 2005\n\nC.Uma Sankar\t  \t...\tPetitioner in W.P.No.816 of 2005\n\nP.Jayasree\t  \t...\tPetitioner in W.P.No.346 of 2005\n\n\n\nVs.\n\n\t\n1.The Director of Elementary Education,\n  D.P.I, Compound,\n  College road,\n  Nungambakkam,\n  Chennai - 600 006.\n\n2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,\n  D.I.G. Office Compound,\n  Thanjavur.\n\n\t    \t\t...\tRespondents 1-2 in all the Writ petitions<\/pre>\n
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
\n  Mathukkoor Union,
\n  Mathukkoor,
\n  Thanjavur District.\n<\/p>\n
         \t\t…\t3rd Respondent in W.P.Nos.507, 517 and 816 of 2005<\/p>\n
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
\n  Thiruvonam,
\n  Thanjavur District.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t…\t3rd Respondent in W.P.No.508 and 518 of 2005<\/p>\n
5.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
\n  Peravoorani,
\n  Thanjavur District.\n<\/p>\n
\t     \t\t…\t3rd Respondent in W.P.No.514 of 2005<\/p>\n
6.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
\n  Sethuparachatram,
\n  Peravoorani
\n  Thanjavur District.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t…\t3rd Respondent in W.P.No.921 of 2005<\/p>\n
PRAYER<\/p>\n
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
\npraying for the issuance of a Writ of   Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
\nrecords of the second respondent pertaining to his proceedings in
\nNa.Ka.No.4889\/Aa1\/2004 dated 20.12.2004 on his file forwarded to me by the 3rd
\nrespondent by his Na.Ka.No.1210\/A1 dated 21.12.2004, on his file and quash the
\nsame, directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service in
\ncontinuation of her work pursuant to her appointment by proceedings of the 2nd
\nrespondent in Na.Ka.No.4889\/Aa1\/2004 dated 22.11.2004 and the consequential
\nproceedings of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.Nos.1210\/A1\/2004, 573\/A1\/2004,
\n834\/A1\/2004 dated 29.11.2004,30.11.2004 on his file  with all monetary and other
\nbenefits.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tFor Petitioners   \t: Mr.K.N.Thampi
\n               (W.P.Nos.507,508,514,517,518 and 921 of 2005)
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t: Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair
\n                               (in W.P.No.346 of 2005)
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t: Ms.J.Ananthavalli
\n                               (in W.P.No.816 of 2005)<\/p>\n
\t     For Respondents\t: Mr.K.V.Vijayakumar,
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t Special Government Pleader.\n<\/p>\n
C O M M O N   O R D E R<\/p>\n
\t Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned
\ncounsel appearing for the respondents. By consent of all the counsels, the writ
\npetitions are taken up for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. In all these cases, the respective petitioners  are either legal heirs
\nof ex-service men or persons presently working in the military or persons who
\nare otherwise eligible for priority in the matter of appointments having
\nregistered their respective names in the employment exchanges.  All the
\npetitioners belong to the Kanyakumari District.  They have passed the Higher
\nSecondary School Course examination conducted by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
\nApart from that they have passed the Diploma examination Diploma in Teacher
\nTraining Education.  That apart, they have also passed the Tamil Language
\nExamination of the S.S.L.C conducted by the Government of Tamil Nadu and are all
\nqualified for appointment as secondary grade teachers under the Government of
\nTamil Nadu.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Based on the sponsoring of their names by the employment exchange, they
\nwere interviewed for the post of secondary grade teachers and their mark
\ncertificates and other certificates relating to their qualifications were
\nverified.  After such verification, the petitioners were appointed by the second
\nrespondent as secondary grade teachers and posted them to various schools.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. It is also admitted as seen in the counter affidavit that the
\npetitioners have produced the certificates and after the verification of the
\nsame, they were provisionally selected for appointment as secondary grade
\nteachers,  however, stating that the appointment was purely temporary without
\nconferring right to continue in service.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by
\ntheir names having been sponsored to the second respondent, their registration
\nin the employment exchange comes to a close and therefore, the avenue of any
\nother employment through employment exchange has come to an end.  Based on the
\nsaid appointments which were made in 2004 and the petitioners have also joined
\nin the respective places.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. However, by virtue of the impugned orders which were passed invariably
\nin the end of 2004, the second respondent has cancelled the appointment of
\npetitioners on the ground that it was revealed afterwards that they have passed
\nS.S.L.C in October by writing only in Tamil examination obtaining 60 marks and
\nthey have undergone Teacher Training Diploma in Malayalam.  The impugned orders
\nalso state that in the Thanjavur District, there is no provision for appointment
\nof teachers who have studied in Malayalam and there is no school having
\nMalayalam as instructing language.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The impugned orders are challenged on various grounds including on the
\nground of principles of estoppel. Apart from the fact that the petitioners have
\ninfact studied in Tamil and they have absolutely working knowledge of the Tamil
\nand capable of teaching the students in the secondary grade level, there was
\nabsolutely no complaints from the students about their teaching in Tamil in
\nclass rooms, since they have adequate working knowledge in Tamil.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. It is also their case that they have studied Tamil in S.S.L.C. as a
\nsecond language and not after joined in the services but nearly 10 years before,
\nand at the time of interview and appointment, they have revealed all the
\ndocuments and it was only having satisfied about their qualifications, the
\npetitioners were appointed.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The impugned orders are also attacked on the ground of legitimate
\nexpectation theory, on the basis that it was depending upon the passing of the
\nTamil language, they were appointed as secondary grade teachers.  On the other
\nhand, the second respondent filed the counter affidavit which has been adopted
\nby other respondents.  In the counter affidavit, while admitting that the
\npetitioners have produced their certificates and after verification they were
\nprovisionally selected and appointed as secondary grade teachers, the
\nrespondents would say that the appointment are temporary without any right of
\ncontinuing the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. It is also the case of the respondents that after the petitioners have
\njoined, it was found that they were teaching the students partly in Tamil and
\npartly  in Malayalam and the same was brought to the notice of the second
\nrespondent.  It is the further case of the respondents that the complaints are
\nreceived from the parents and children that the petitioners are not well-versed
\nin Tamil.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The respondents further relied upon the rule 12A of the General Rules
\nfor the Tamilnadu State subordinate Services in the light of a letter of the
\nTamil Nadu Public Service Commission dated 20.06.2002 which reads as follows.:\n<\/p>\n
\t “The Commission, after careful examination has in the light of the rule
\n12(A) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State Sub-ordinate Services and
\nthe eligibility condition furnished by the Secretary, Directorate of Government
\nExaminations in the letter second cited, decided that a pass in the Tamil
\nsubject alone in the S.S.L.C Examination after entry into Govt. Service of an
\nindividual whose mother tongue is other than Tamil Language and who have not
\nstudied the Tamil in the S.S.L.C. Examination or in the College level, need not
\nbe considered as an alternative qualification for a pass in the prescribed II
\nclass Language Test\/Advanced Language Test \/ Special Language Test in Tamil
\nHigher Grade conducted by the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission and they
\ncannot be considered as one possessing adequate knowledge in Tamil.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The respondents would also states that as per G.O.Ms.No.1383 Education
\ndated 23.08.1988 under which the said rules for Tamil Nadu Elementary Education
\nSubordinate Service have been framed, it is stated apart from other
\nqualifications that “No person whose mother tongue is other than Tamil or who
\nhas not acquired knowledge of Tamil in his High School Course or who has not
\npassed the second class language Test in Tamil shall be eligible for appointment
\nto any category in the service.”  Therefore, according to the respondents, the
\npetitioners are not qualified.\n<\/p>\n
\t 13. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners as
\nalso the learned Special Government Pleader  appearing for the respondents and
\nperused the counter affidavit and all other records submitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. AS stated above, it is the admitted case of the respondents themselves
\nthat while the petitioners were appointed they have produced all the
\ncertificates and only after verification of the certificates they were
\nprovisionally selected.   The respondents were also aware that these petitioners
\nhave passed their Tamil as a second knowledge in S.S.L.C separately.  That apart
\nit cannot be state that the respondents were not aware that the petitioners have
\nstudied  the teacher training in Diploma in Malayalam Language.   It is also
\nafter knowing the entire facts and verifying the records after conducting the
\ninterview the petitioners were selected.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. In this regard, it is relevant to point out that even as per the
\nspecial rules framed for Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service in
\nG.O.Ms.No.1383 Education dated 23.08.1988, apart from the the other
\nqualifications which are undoubtedly present regarding the petitioners which is
\nnot in dispute, the qualification regarding the Tamil language would say that
\neither such persons should have the Tamil as mother tongue or who has acquired
\nknowledge of Tamil in Higher Secondary School Course or who has passed second
\nclass language test in Tamil.  Infact, the petitioners have passed the second
\nclass language in Tamil in S.S.L.C. level. Probably, it was only having
\nsatisfied that the petitioners were qualified even in respect of Tamil language
\nthey were appointed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said Government order
\nprohibits the person like petitioners from being appointed as secondary grade
\nteachers on the basis of want of qualification in Tamil.   Even the rule 12(A)
\nGeneral Rules for the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Services which in my opinion
\nmay not be applicable, a perusal of all the said special rules for the Tamil
\nNadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service, as  stated above, also in the
\nlight of the letter of the Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission dated
\n20.06.2002, would only state that it is in respect of the persons who have
\nalready entered into service whose mother tongue is not Tamil and who have not
\nstudied Tamil in S.S.L.C examination or in the college level where stated not be
\nconsidered as an alternative qualification when they have passed Tamil subject
\nalone in S.S.L.C. examination.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. As stated above, the said rule even if the same is applicable it is to
\nthose persons who have joined in the Government service and latter passed
\nS.S.L.C examination in Tamil subject alone.  The present case of the petitioners
\nare entirely different in nature as stated earlier. Even 10 years before they
\njoining the service they have all passed the Tamil subject alone in the S.S.L.C
\nexamination.  It is  only after perusal of the records they were appointed.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. Therefore, even on this ground, it is not open to the respondents now
\nto turn round to say as if the petitioners are not qualified.  Therefore, the
\nentire facts categorically proved that there was absolutely no problem regarding
\nthe qualifications of the petitioners.  The next aspect to be considered is as
\nto whether they can be abruptly removed on the allegations of complaints either
\nfrom the parents or the students. Eventhough, the respondents have chosen to
\nstate in the counter affidavit as if there were some complaints from the parents
\nand students that the petitioners teaching partly in Tamil and partly in
\nMalayalam, the same is nowhere mentioned in the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.  As clearly established judicial pronouncements, the respondents
\ncannot be permitted to substitute in their counter affidavit something which
\nnever find place in the impugned order as such.   It is seen that in all these
\ncases, while admitting the writ petitions, the impugned order has been stayed
\nand the respondents have infact, filed the vacate stay petition and the
\npetitioners continue in their respective posts as secondary grade teachers.
\nEven assuming that there has been complaint about the petitioners in not
\nteaching Tamil properly,  the impugned order cannot be stated to be a proper
\nsince admittedly the respondents passed the impugned orders without even giving
\nany opportunity to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. It is relevant because it is the case of the petitioners that they are
\nliving in Tamil Nadu for a very long period and they have absolute knowledge in
\nTamil. If it is really true that there was genuine complaints from students and
\nparents and the respondents have genuine interest for protecting the students,
\nthey should have given proper notice about the complaints and conducted proper
\nenquiry before passing order of cancelling the appointment of the petitioners.
\nThe petitioners cannot be heard to say that the appointments are provisional,
\ntemporary and therefore they can cancel the appointment at any time.  Again
\nexcept in the counter affidavit such clause that they can be terminated at any
\ntime is not finding place in any of the appointment orders, eventhough the
\nappointment orders indicate that the appointment is temporary.  The full reading
\nof the appointment order would show that they are paid consolidated salary of
\nRs.3,000\/- for the first five years and they are all given the rights of leave
\netc.,<\/p>\n
\t20.  The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners would rely upon
\nthe judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in S.Sukhbans Singh Vs. State of
\nPunjab reported in AIR 1962 SCC 1711 to the effect that when any such order is
\npassed which would amount to punishment, the requirement of Article 311(2) of
\nthe Constitution of India has to be complied with.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. In fact the Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that the
\nrights conferred under the said article is applicable even to the temporary
\nstaff.  The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon another
\njudgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in K.K.Jacob (Minor)
\nrepresented by father and guardian M.K.Korah Vs. The Madurai University
\nrepresented by the Registrar   reported in 1978 1 MLJ 440. This Court has held
\nthat the university is not justified in cancelling admission after five months
\non the basis of a student having only 35% of marks in ICSE holding that in such
\ncases the said requirement ought to have been exempted.  However, the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case and the impugned order can only be treated as punitive
\nin character especially when in the counter affidavit it is alleged that there
\nhas been complaint against the petitioners about their performance as teachers.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. In such circumstances, the principles of natural justice required an
\nopportunity to them.  In the absence of such opportunity and looked into any
\nangle, I am of the view that the impugned orders suffer from illegality and are
\nliable to be set aside and accordingly the impugned orders are set aside and the
\nwrit petitions are allowed.  However, there will be no order as to costs.
\nConsequently, connected W.P.M.Ps and W.V.M.Ps. are closed.\n<\/p>\n
  \t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t28.02.2006<\/p>\n
Index: Yes
\nInternet:Yes
\nsms<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
\n  D.P.I, Compound,
\n  College road,
\n  Nungambakkam,
\n  Chennai – 600 006.\n<\/p>\n
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
\n  D.I.G. Office Compound,
\n  Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
\n  Mathukkoor Union,
\n  Mathukkoor,
\n  Thanjavur District.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
\n  Thiruvonam,
\n  Thanjavur District.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
\n  Peravoorani,
\n  Thanjavur District.\n<\/p>\n
6.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
\n  Sethuparachatram,
\n  Peravoorani
\n  Thanjavur District.\n<\/p>\n
P.JYOTHIMANI,J.\n<\/p>\n
sms<\/p>\n
Pre-delivery order in
\nW.P.Nos.507,508,514,517,518,921,816,346 of 2005<\/p>\n
28.02.2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court G.R.Chitra vs The Director Of Elementary … on 28 February, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28\/02\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.507 of 2005 W.P.Nos.508,514,517,518,921,816,346 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.Nos.495,876,496,505,509,508,876,775 and 326 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.Nos.335,336,337,343,338,339,334 and 333 of 2005 G.R.Chitra … Petitioner in W.P.No.507 of […]<\/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-237884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nG.R.Chitra vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 28 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.R.Chitra vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 28 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-25T18:40:26+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.R.Chitra vs The Director Of Elementary … on 28 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-25T18:40:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2476,\"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\\\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006\",\"name\":\"G.R.Chitra vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 28 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-25T18:40:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.R.Chitra vs The Director Of Elementary … on 28 February, 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":"G.R.Chitra vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 28 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.R.Chitra vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 28 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-25T18:40:26+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.R.Chitra vs The Director Of Elementary … on 28 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-25T18:40:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006"},"wordCount":2476,"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\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006","name":"G.R.Chitra vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 28 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-25T18:40:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-r-chitra-vs-the-director-of-elementary-on-28-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.R.Chitra vs The Director Of Elementary … on 28 February, 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\/237884","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=237884"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237884\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}