{"id":243418,"date":"2004-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004"},"modified":"2018-01-01T02:22:42","modified_gmt":"2017-12-31T20:52:42","slug":"dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"Dr.D.Narmadha vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Dr.D.Narmadha vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 April, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 27\/04\/2004\n\nC O R A M\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\n\nWRIT PETITION No.2151 of 2004\nand W.P.Nos., 2152, 2161,\n2170 TO 2174, 2175 TO 2179, 2376, 2407, 2457,\n2551, 2568, 2581, 2704, 2796, 2846, 2847, 2852,\n2885, 2893, 2929, 2968, 3014, 3289, 3567, 3571,\n3627, 3653, 3675 AND 3676 OF 2004 and\nW.P.M.P.NOS.2427, 2428, 2430, 2431, 2433,\n2434, 2436, 2437, 2439, 2440, 2777, 2949,\n3379, 3476, 3835, 4194 AND 4343 OF 2004\n\n\nW.P.NO.2151 OF 2004:\n\n1. Dr.D.Narmadha\n2. Dr.N.Uma\n3. Dr.A.Mythily\n4. Dr.A.R.Akilandeswari\n5. Dr.V.Uma Maheswari\n6. Dr.B.Malathi\n7. Dr.V.Sharmila Devi\n8. Dr.V.Jayanthi\n9. Dr.K.Vanitha\n10.Dr.C.Chandrakala\n11.Dr.L.Lakshmi Prabha\n12.Dr.U.Rasheedha\n13.Dr.M.Rajni\n14.Dr.P.Sumathi\n15.Dr.R.Geetha\n16.Dr.M.S.P.Uma Maheswari\n17.Dr.K.Usha Krishnan\n18.Dr.C.Umarani\n19.Dr.D.Selvi\n20.Dr.K.Sasi Rekha\n21.Dr.R.Lalitha\n22.Dr.V.Kanimozhi\n23.Dr.G.Aruna\n24.Dr.B.Suhasini\n25.Dr.S.Kalpana\n26.Dr.Sujatha Andrew\n27.Dr.T.Latha Jagadeesan\n28.Dr.S.Hemalatha\n29.Dr.B.Valthuruchi\n30.Dr.G.Thulasi Lakshmi\n31.Dr.K.Jayanthi\n32.Dr.S.Premalatha\n33.Dr.V.Chitra Devi\n34.Dr.T.Shanmugapriya\n35.Dr.K.Kalyani\n36.Dr.J.Priya\n37.Dr.T.A.Aruna Devi\n38.Dr.S.Shanmugavalli\n39.Dr.V.Arthi\n40.Dr.R.Muamaheswari                            .. Petitioners\n\n\n-Vs-\n\n\n1. State of Tamilnadu,\nrep. by its Secretary to Government,\nHigher Education Department,\nSt.George Fort,\nChennai-600 009.\n\n2. Director of Medical Education,\nDirectorate of Medical Education,\nKilpauk, Chennai-600 010.\n\n3. Medical Council of India,\nrep. by its Secretary,\nAIWAN-E-Ghaliv Marg,\nKotla Road, New Delhi-110 002.          .. Respondents<\/pre>\n
!For Petitioners   … Mr.R.Krishnamoorthi
\n                          for Mr.V.Ayyadurai, SC in
\n                W.P.Nos.2968, 3289, 3014, 3571,
\n                3627, 3653, 3675, 3676, 2151,
\n                and 2152 of 2004<\/p>\n
                Mr.Ilanthiraiyan for
\n                M\/s.Sai, Bharathi & Ilan
\n                In W.P.No.2929 of 2004<\/p>\n
                Mr.N.Ravishankar
\n                Vallatharasu in
\n                W.P.No.2551 of 2004<\/p>\n
                Mr.U.M.Ravichandran in
\n                W.P.No.2893, 2568, 2885, 2581   and 2161 of 2004<\/p>\n
                Mr.N.Paul Vasanthakumar
\n                in W.P.No.2704 of 2004<\/p>\n
                Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
\n                in W.P.No.2796 and 2376 of 2004<\/p>\n
                Mr.M.Muthappan
\n                in W.P.No.2852 of 2004<\/p>\n
                Mr.R.Balakrishnan
\n                in W.P.No.2457 of 2004<\/p>\n
                Mr.A.Arul Sagai
\n                in W.P.Nos.2846, 2847, 2407,    2170 to 2174, 2176 to 2179
\n                of 2004<\/p>\n
                Mr.S.T.Raja
\n                in W.P.No.3567 of 2004<\/p>\n
 ^For respondents    … Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy
\n                Addl.Advocate General
\n                assisted by
\n                Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran, Sp.G.P.\n<\/p>\n
                (Education)
\n                for respondents 1 and 2 in
\n                all Writ Petitions<\/p>\n
                Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan
\n                for Mr.R.Singaravelan for R3
\n                in all Writ Petitions<\/p>\n
        Prayer: These  Writ  Petitions  are  filed  under  Article  226 of The
\nConstitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration for the reliefs as
\nstated therein.\n<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER
\n                In all these Writ Petitions, the challenge is to Clause 23  of
\nthe  prospectus issued by the second respondent herein in respect of admission
\nto the Post- Graduate Degree \/Diploma\/ MDS\/5-year M.Ch.(NeuroSurgery)  Courses
\nfor  the  Academic Year 2004-2005, to declare the said Clause as arbitrary and
\nunconstitutional  and  consequently  direct  the  respondents  to  permit  the
\npetitioners  to  apply  for  any Post-Graduate Degree\/Diploma\/MDS\/5-year M.Ch.
\n(Neuro Surgery) Courses by fixing  the  completion  of  two  year  service  as
\neligibility criteria for applying for the academic year 2004-2005.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   The  relevant  Clause 23 in the prospectus issued for the
\nyear 200 4-2005 reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                “23.  Those Service candidates who have put in less than Three
\nYears of satisfactory continuous service as on 01-02-2004 either in Tamil Nadu
\nMedical Service  or  in  Local  Bodies  and  Organisations  mentioned  in  the
\nprospectus  are  not  eligible  to  apply  for  PG  Degree\/ Diploma\/ Five Year
\nM.Ch.(Neuro Surgery) Courses.”\n<\/p>\n
                3.  The petitioners are all the candidates who were admittedly
\nin the services of either Tamil Nadu Medical Services or  other  Organizations
\nmentioned in  the  prospectus.  All the petitioners are stated to have entered
\nservice in the year 2001.   It  is  relevant  to  state  that  till  the  year
\n2003-2004,  the eligibility criteria for making the applications to PG Courses
\nwas stated to be `completion of two years of continuity of service’ as on  the
\ndate fixed  in  the  respective prospectus.  It is also relevant to state that
\nsome of the petitioners who were appointed in  the  month  of  February  2001,
\njoined  the  service  in  that month as from the date when the appointment was
\nmade or the last date of that month viz., 28th day of February, 2001.    Among
\nothers, some of the petitioners are stated to have been appointed in the month
\nof November 2001.  Therefore, the common grievance of these petitioners, while
\nchallenging  ‘Clause  23’ of the prosp ectus of the year 2004-200 5 is that by
\nvirtue of the stipulation, viz., that in order to be eligible for  making  the
\napplications  to any of the PG Courses, Service Candidate should have put in a
\nminimum of three years of service as against two years  which  was  prescribed
\ntill  the  last  academic year, viz., 2003-2004, they were prevented from even
\napplying for any of the PG courses and thereby they have been put  to  serious
\nprejudice.\n<\/p>\n
                4.   As  far  as those petitioners who happened to join in the
\nmonth of February 2001, the further contention was that while their batchmates
\nwho happened to be  appointed  a  little  earlier  than  February  2001,  were
\nfortunate  enough  to  apply for such PG course in the academic year 2003-2004
\nitself inasmuch as, the prescription then was only ` completion of two years’,
\nthe petitioners were prevented  from  even  making  the  applications  in  the
\npresent  academic  year  2004-2005 due to the increase in the number of years,
\nviz., from two years to  three  years  as  has  now  been  stipulated  in  the
\nprospectus of the year 2004-2005.\n<\/p>\n
                5.   In  the  light  of  the above factors, the contention put
\nforth on  behalf  of  the  petitioners  was  two  fold.    According  to   the
\npetitioners,  in the first place, the enhancement of the minimum period of two
\nyears to three years, had no nexus to the object to be achieved while the said
\nprescription was arbitrary in nature.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior counsel  appearing  for
\nsome  of  the  petitioners  in  these  Writ Petitions and also M\/s.Paul Vasant
\nKumar, and V.Ayya  Durai,  who  appeared  for  other  respective  petitioners,
\nadopted the arguments  of  the  learned  Senior  counsel.   Of them, Mr.  Paul
\nVasanth made certain additional submissions.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  Mr.R.Krishnamurthy in his submissions, contended  that  at
\nthe  time  of  recruitment  through  Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the
\npetitioners were informed as part of condition of their  recruitment  that  in
\nthe  event  of  their selection, they should compulsorily serve in the zone in
\nwhich he\/she would be posted after counselling, for a minimum  period  of  ten
\nyears,  of which, he\/she should have served for a period of not less than five
\nyears excluding any period spent on training, leave, or  higher  education  in
\nGovernment  Primary  Health  Centres,  that  when  the  petitioners joined the
\nservice by accepting the above stated condition, their service  in  the  rural
\nareas  got  ensured  and therefore, the respondents cannot take the stand that
\nunless the service candidates are mandatorily required to ensure  three  years
\nservice,  they  would  be  ineligible  to  apply  for PG Courses while seeking
\nadmission to such courses.  According to the learned Senior counsel, when  the
\nvery recruitment process, as well as, the appointment order made it clear that
\nthe  petitioners  once  entered  the  service of the State, they are liable to
\nserve in rural areas for a minimum period stipulated as a condition  for  such
\nappointment, a further stipulation in order to make them eligible to apply for
\nPG  Course  was  un-called  for  and  therefore,  the  same  was  an arbitrary
\nstipulation imposed in the prospectus of the year 2004-2005.    For  the  very
\nsame  reasoning,  it  was further contended that it cannot be held that it had
\nany nexus to the object to be achieved by creating such  a  stipulation  while
\ncalling for  applications for admissions to PG Courses.  It was also contended
\nthat while the prospectus of the year 2004-2005 was common for all  applicants
\nboth `the service candidates’ as well as ‘open category’, as a common entrance
\ntest  was  being held for both categories, the prescription of a different cut
\nof date for the open category candidates visa-vis the service candidates would
\namount to discrimination and therefore, on that ground as well,  the  impugned
\nClause 23 is liable to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
                8.   It  was then contended that even in respect of in-service
\ncandidates, while one group were fortunate enough to be  eligible  for  making
\nthe  applications in the year 2003-2004, by virtue of the fact that they could
\ncomplete two years of service as on  1-2-2003,  which  was  the  cut  of  date
\nprescribed  in  the prospectus of the said year, in respect of the petitioners
\nwho also came to be appointed along with those other  persons,  since  because
\ntheir  appointment  orders  came  to  be  issued  in the month of February and
\nNovember, 2001, they were deprived of even making  the  applications  for  the
\nacademic  year  2004-2005  by  virtue of the enhancement of the minimum period
\nfrom two years to three years in the present prospectus.    According  to  the
\nlearned  Senior  counsel,  even  on this ground, a discriminatory treatment is
\nbeing meted out to the petitioners which would render the impugned  Clause  23
\ninvalid.\n<\/p>\n
                9.   Mr.Paul  Vasanth Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
\npetitioner in W.P.No.2704 of 2004, contended that  in  the  counter  affidavit
\nfiled  on  behalf  of  the  respondents, it has been shown that as against 392
\nseats ear marked for the service candidates, only  316  Medical  Officers  got
\nselected in the last three years for admission in Post Graduate Degree\/Diploma
\nCourses  and  in  the  said  circumstances,  when  lot  of seats earmarked for
\nin-service candidates remained unfilled, the further  restriction  imposed  by
\nenhancing  the  period  of service to be put in by the service candidates from
\ntwo to three years would only curtail the  zone  of  consideration,  on  which
\nground also, Clause 23 is liable to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
                10.   It  was  then  contended that the petitioner when joined
\nservice along with others in the year 2001, was in  the  fond  hope  that  she
\nwould be able to apply for PG Course on completion of two years and that while
\nher other batch-mates were able to stake their claim in the previous years, by
\nvirtue  of  the  enhancement  in  the  number of years of service made for the
\nacademic year 2004-2005, her legitimate expectation has been  demolished,  and
\non that ground, Clause 23 should be held to be invalid.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  It was lastly contended on behalf of the petitioners that
\neven  on  the ground of equity and fair play, some of the petitioners in these
\nWrit Petitions, who joined the service  in  the  month  February  2001  should
\natleast be permitted to avail the benefit in the year 2004-200 5.\n<\/p>\n
                12.   In support of the above submissions, reliance was placed
\nupon “1981(2) All India Services  Law  Journal  578  (DR.SEMA  SRIVASTAVA  AND
\nOTHERS  versus  PRINCIPAL,  BABA  RAGHAV  DAS  MEDICAL  COLLEGE, GORAKHPUR AND
\nOTHERS); 1983 (1) LLN 289 (NAKARA (D.S.) AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA) and
\n2000(8)SCC 633 (PRAVEEN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS)\n<\/p>\n
                13.  As against the above submissions,  learned  Addl.Advocate
\nGeneral,  appearing  for the respondents, contended that in-service candidates
\nwho were recruited afresh are primarily directed to render  their  service  in
\nthe  rural  areas,  viz.,  in  the  Primary  Health  Centres, that out of 2893
\nsanctioned posts for Primary Health Centres as of 2004, only  2315  posts  had
\nbeen  filled, even of the posts filled up so far, 20% of the posts always lies
\nvacant due to various reasons while in the most backward areas, nearly 45%  to
\n50% of  the  vacancies  are  always  lying  vacant.  The learned Addl.Advocate
\nGeneral would point out that unlike other States, in the State of Tamil  Nadu,
\na  provision  has been made for reserving 50% of the seats available in the PG
\ncourses for the in-service candidates which prescription had also been  upheld
\nby  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in the Judgments reported in “2001(2)SCC 538
\n(K.DURAISAM AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS)”  and  “2001(8)
\nSCC 694 (PRE-PG MEDICAL SANGHARSH COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER versus DR.BAJRANG SONI
\nAND  OTHERS,  ETC.)”  that  while  there is large amount of competition in the
\n`open category’, the scope of competition is limited (i.e.,) to the extent  of
\n1:3 as amongst the in-service candidates apart from the fact that such service
\ncandidates  are  also  entitled to count the period during which PG course are
\nstudied, as part of their service apart from the  fact  that  they  were  also
\nbeing paid  the salary during the said period.  According to the learned Addl.
\nAdvocate General, the in-service candidates are therefore, treated differently
\nas compared to the open category candidates and therefore at the outset, there
\ncan be no comparison of the criteria fixed for the open category candidates to
\nthat of the in-service candidates.\n<\/p>\n
                14.  The learned Addl.Advocate  General  then  contended  that
\nwhile  earlier,  the persons who entered the State service were called upon to
\ngive an undertaking that they would serve a minimum period of  five  years  in
\nthe rural areas, a Government Order came to be issued in G.O.(2D).No.71 Health
\nand Family Welfare Department, dated 24-10-2002, wherein, the five year period
\ncame  to  be altered as three years by taking into account very many practical
\nreasons such as to ensure that the period prescribed for rural service is duly
\ncomplied with by the persons who are being recruited for  that  purpose.    It
\nwas, therefore, contended that the prescription of three years now made in the
\nimpugned  prospectus  for  the  academic year 2004-2005 had every nexus in the
\nsense that it was to ensure that at least for a minimum period of three years,
\nthere was uninterrupted service in the rural areas which is in the interest of
\nthe public at large.   It  was,  therefore,  contended  that  as  against  the
\ninterest  of  the public at large, the interest of the petitioners should give
\nway and therefore, there can be no fault found with the prescription  made  in
\nthe  impugn  ed  Clause  23 while enhancing the minimum period of two years to
\nthat of three years as from the academic year 2004-2005.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  The learned Addl.Advocate General further contended  that
\nprescription  of such criterion are the policy of the State and so long as the
\nsaid policy was not arbitrary and when it has got relevance to the  object  to
\nbe achieved,  the  same  cannot  be called in question.  It was also contended
\nthat the State is entitled to prescribe  the  eligibility  conditions  in  the
\nlight  of  various  other  liabilities of the State Government which are to be
\nmeted out to the public at large.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  The sum and substance of the contention  of  the  learned
\nAddl.   Advocate  General  was that the present prescription of three years in
\nClause 23 was for twin objectives, viz., (a) to  ensure  that  the  Government
\nDoctors  render  uninterrupted  continuous  service  in  the rural areas for a
\nminimum period of three years in public interest and  (b)  to  ensure  that  a
\nbetter  qualified  person from the point of view of experience is selected for
\nundertaking PG Course, so that his further service  in  the  State  Government
\nwhich is  ultimately for the public at large would be more beneficial.  In the
\nlight  of  the  above  submissions,  it  was  contended  that  the  conditions
\nprescribed  in  the impugned Clause 23 of the prospectus was neither arbitrary
\nnor capricious in order to be interfered with the same.\n<\/p>\n
                17.  The learned Addl.Advocate General relied upon  “AIR  1971
\nSC 1762  (D.N.CHANCHALA, ETC.  versus THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS, ETC.), 2
\n001(2) SCC 538 (K.DURAISAMY AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF  T.N.    AND  OTHERS);
\n2001(8)  SCC  694  (PRE-PG  MEDICAL  SANGHARSH  COMMITTEE  AND  ANOTHER versus
\nDR.BAJRANG SONI AND OTHERS, ETC.); 1997(9)SCC 495  (KRISHNAN  KAKKANTH  versus
\nGOVERNMENT  OF  KERALA  AND OTHERS); AIR 2002 SC 2642 ( STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND
\nOTHERS versus LATA ARUN); 2003(5) SCC 437 (UNION OF INDIA AND  ANOTHER  versus
\nINTERNATIONAL TRADING CO.AND ANOTHER)” in support of his submissions.\n<\/p>\n
                18.   Having  heard the learned counsel for either parties, at
\nthe out set, it would be relevant to state that in matters of this kind, where
\nsuch prescriptions are made by the State Government for filling up the courses
\noffered by it, it is well settled that the State is entitled to prescribe  and
\nlay down  the  standards  of  eligibility.    Reliance  can be placed upon the
\njudgment  of  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  reported  in  “AIR  1971  SC  1762
\n(D.N.CHANCHALA ETC.    versus  THE  STATE  OF  MYSORE  AND  OTHERS, ETC.)”, in
\nparticular para 17 can be usefully referred to on this aspect.\n<\/p>\n
                “17.  Since the Government  has  set  up  these  colleges  and
\nmaintains  them, it has prima facie the power to regulate admission in its own
\ninstitutions.  Counsel for the petitioners pointed out to us no provision from
\nthe University Acts which deprives the Government of the power of making rules
\nfor admission in its own colleges.  That being so, it cannot be said that  the
\nGovernment  has  no  power  to  regulate admission in its own colleges or that
\nbecause a student is eligible for admission under the  University  ordinances,
\nhe  automatically gets a right to admission which he can enforce in a Court of
\nlaw.”\n<\/p>\n
                        (Underlining is mine)\n<\/p>\n
                19.  The above proposition of law laid  down  by  the  Hon’ble
\nSupreme  Court  in  respect  of  Government run medical colleges would make it
\nclear that it  would  be  in  order  for  the  State  Government  to  regulate
\nadmissions  in  its own colleges, which would be in the interest of the public
\nat large.  When it comes to the question of prescribing such stipulations, the
\nonly other basis would be that it is the policy of  the  State  Government  in
\nmaking  such  stipulations  which  again  is  in the interest of the public at
\nlarge.  As far as such policy decisions are concerned, it has been  held  that
\nso   long  as  such  policy  decisions  are  not  contrary  to  any  statutory
\nprescriptions or such policies are not wholly unfair and  unreasonable,  there
\nis  absolutely no scope for the Courts to interfere with such policy decisions
\nof the State.  On this aspect, useful reference can be had to the judgment  of
\nthe  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  reported  in “1997(9) SCC 495 (KRISHNAN KAKKANTH
\nversus GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND OTHERS)”, wherein, in  para  36,  the  Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court has stated the legal position as under:\n<\/p>\n
        “36.   To  ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context
\nof Article 14 of the Constitution, it is  not  necessary  to  enter  upon  any
\nexercise  for  finding  out  the  wisdom  in  the policy decision of the State
\nGovernment.  It is immaterial whether a better or  more  comprehensive  policy
\ndecision could  have  been  taken.    It  is  equally  immaterial if it can be
\ndemonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely  to  defeat  the
\npurpose for which such decision has been taken.  Unless the policy decision is
\ndemonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever
\nor  it  suffers  from  the  vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or
\nprovisions of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down.  It
\nshould be borne in mind that except for  the  limited  purpose  of  testing  a
\npublic  policy  in  the  context of illegality and unconstitutionality, courts
\nshould avoid “embarking on uncharted ocean of public policy.”           (
\nUnderlining is mine)<\/p>\n
                20.  Further in the judgment reported in  “AIR  2002  SC  2642
\n(STATE  OF  RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS versus LATA ARUN)”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
\nhas stated the position more clear in para 9, wherein, it  has  been  held  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
                “9.  The  points  involved  in  the  case  are  two fold:  one
\nrelating to prescription of minimum educational qualification for admission to
\nthe course and the other relating to recognition of the  Madhyama  Certificate
\nissued  by  the  Hindi  Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to or higher
\nthan +2 or 1st year of TDC for the purpose of admission.   Both  these  points
\nrelate  to  matters  in  the  realm of policy decision to be taken by the Sate
\nGovernment or the authority vested with power under any statute.   It  is  not
\nfor  the  Courts  to  determine whether a particular educational qualification
\npossessed by a candidate should or should not be recognized as  equivalent  to
\nthe prescribed  qualification  in  the  case.    That  is not to say that such
\nmatters are not justiciable.  In any appropriate case the  Court  can  examine
\nwhether  the  policy  decision  or  the  administrative order dealing with the
\nmatter is based on  a  fair,  rational  and  reasonable  ground;  whether  the
\ndecision  has  been  taken  on consideration of relevant aspects of the matter
\nwhether exercise of the power is obtained with mala  fide  intention;  whether
\nthe  decision  serves  the purpose of giving proper training to the candidates
\nadmitted or it  is  based  on  irrelevant  and  irrational  considerations  or
\nintended to benefit an individual or a group of candidates.”\n<\/p>\n
                        (Underlining is mine)\n<\/p>\n
                21.   Therefore,  in  appropriate cases, the Court can examine
\nwhether the policy decision dealing with  any  matter  is  based  on  a  fair,
\nrational and reasonable ground and such decision was taken on consideration of
\nrelevant  aspects of the matter and whether such decisions in any way conflict
\nwith any statutory provisions.  Therefore, going by  the  guidelines  set  out
\nabove,  when  the  case  on hand is analysed, it will have to be stated at the
\noutset that even while testing the various submissions made, it will  have  to
\nbe confined to the case of service candidates alone as there would be no scope
\nfor  comparing  the  petitioners, who are all service candidates, with that of
\nOpen Category who are governed by Clause 17 of  the  Prospectus.    I  say  so
\nbecause  a  clear  distinction has been already demarcated as between the open
\ncategory candidates  for  whom  no  prescribed  minimum  experience  has  been
\nstipulated  for  making  an  application, while for the in-service candidates,
\nthey have to necessarily put in a  minimum  of  three  years  of  satisfactory
\ncontinuous  service  as  on  1-2-2004  in  order to be eligible for making the
\napplication.  As  far  as  open  category  candidates  are  concerned,  it  is
\nsufficient  that  they  complete  their  CRRI  before  the  date  of  entrance
\nexamination, meaning thereby that a fresh doctor who after completion  of  his
\nMBBS  course  and  immediately after the completion of his internship, is made
\neligible to apply under the open category.  While such being  the  wide  scope
\nfor making the applications in respect of open category candidates, when there
\nis  restriction  placed  among  the  in-service candidates and when 50% of the
\ntotal  seats  are  ear  marked  for  in-service  candidates,   the   zone   of
\nconsideration  as among the in-service candidates gets restricted while in the
\ncase of open category candidates, it would be on a larger area.  In  fact,  it
\nwas  stated  that in the open category zone, there would be not less than 4000
\nto 5000 applications in a year, while the scope of consideration in respect of
\nthe in-service candidates, would be to a limited extent, i.e.  1:3 alone only.\n<\/p>\n
                22.  In fact, when  this  allocation  of  50%  for  in-service
\ncandidates  came  up for challenge, the matter went upto the Supreme Court and
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court, in  the  judgment  reported  in  “2001(2)  SCC  538
\n(K.DURAISAM AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS)” has upheld the
\nreservation  of  50%  made  for  in-service candidates, but made it clear that
\nin-service candidates would not on  the  basis  of  the  merit  be  considered
\nagainst the  seats ear marked for non-service candidates.  The Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt was pleased to hold that because the Government possess  the  right  and
\nauthority to decide from what sources, the admissions in the educational or to
\nparticular discipline and courses therein have to be made and that too in what
\nproportion.   Therefore,  by  now  it  is  well  settled  that  the in-service
\ncandidates would be staking their claim only as amongst their counter parts in
\nthe same service and there would be no scope for any outsider to compete  with
\nthem in  the  matter  of  such  selection.    Here  again,  when certain other
\nconcessions were shown in the minimum marks prescribed for selection,  when  a
\nchallenge  came  to  be  made, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to uphold
\neven such prescription, in the judgment reported in “2001 (8) SCC 694  (PRE-PG
\nMEDICAL  SANGHARSH  COMMITTEE  AND  ANOTHER versus DR.BAJRANG SONI AND OTHERS,
\nETC.)”, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered  the  said  issue  in
\ndepth and has held as under in para 8:\n<\/p>\n
                “8.   The  learned  counsel  for the appellants, who filed the
\nappeals with the permission  of  the  Court,  also  sought  to  challenge  the
\nconclusion  arrived  at by the learned Single Judge in repelling the challenge
\nmade to the reduction of the  minimum  cut-off  marks  for  selection  of  the
\nin-service candidates  from  50%  to  33%.    Apart from the tenability of the
\nobjection taken by Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing  for  the
\nrespondent  private  candidates,  that  if there was no challenge made to this
\nreasoning before the Division Bench of the High Court, it is  not  permissible
\nto take  such  a  stand  in  this  Court.  We are are also of the view, on the
\nmerits of the claim itself, that there is no substance in the same.  It is not
\nin controversy that during the  academic  years  in  question,  there  was  no
\nstipulation  by  the Medical Council of India of any minimum eligibility marks
\nto be secured in  the  entrance  examination  for  admission  to  postgraduate
\ncourses.  Though it is said that in 2000 such a stipulation has been made, for
\nthe  obvious  reason that during the years under our consideration there is no
\nsuch  stipulation,  the  challenge  in  this  regard  does   not   merit   our
\nconsideration  or  acceptance,  leave  alone  the  question  as to efficacy or
\nbinding nature of the said stipulation, which we do not propose to  adjudicate
\nupon in  these  cases.    That  apart,  as  rightly  pointed out in one of the
\njudgments of this Court noticed above, mere theoretical  excellence  or  merit
\nalone  is no sufficient indicia of the qualitative merits of the candidates in
\nthe field of actual practice and application.  The doctors who are  in-service
\ncandidates   in  various  medical  institutions  run  and  maintained  by  the
\nGovernment or government departments, have wide area and horizon  of  exposure
\non  the  practical  side and they may not have the required extra time to keep
\nthemselves afresh on the theoretical side like an open candidate who may  have
\nsufficient time  at  his  disposal  to  plod  through  books.   The in-service
\ncandidates in contrast to the fresh or open candidates have to spend  much  of
\ntheir  time  on attending and treating the patients in the hospital they serve
\ngaining excellence on  the  practical  side  and,  in  our  view,  they  would
\nconstitute  a distinct class by themselves to be given a special treatment and
\nno grievance can be made out on the ground that the minimum eligibility  marks
\nfor  their selection in respect of seats earmarked for them should also be the
\nsame as that of the fresh or open candidates.  We could see no  discrimination
\nor  arbitrariness  involved  in  the special provision made to meet a just and
\nappropriate need in public interest.”\n<\/p>\n
                        (Underlining is mine)<\/p>\n
                23.  Therefore, even while  upholding  the  reduction  of  the
\nminimum  cut  of  marks for selection of the in-service candidates from 50% to
\n33%, which in our case, it is 40%, the Hon’ble Supreme Court  was  pleased  to
\nhold  such a criteria had a reasonable nexus inasmuch as inservice doctors who
\nare in service in various institutions of the government  have  wide  area  of
\nexposure  on  the  practical  side,  which  enable  them  to have some special
\nconsideration.  That apart,  as  pointed  out  by  the  learned  Addl.Advocate
\nGeneral,  in-service  candidates enjoyed a further benefit of the salary given
\nfor the period during which they would be attending to the PG courses to which
\nthey get selected apart from the fact that even that period is counted for the
\npurpose of their service, which would be beneficial to them at the  time  when
\ntheir terminal  benefits  are  to  be  worked  out.    Therefore, such special
\nconcessions and advantages are made available to  such  in-service  candidates
\nare also to be borne in mind while testing the validity of the impugned Clause
\n23  of  the  prospectus,  which  is  under  challenge in these Writ Pettiions.
\nTherefore, there is no scope to compare the case of the petitioners with  that
\nof the open category candidates whose claims are dealt with differently in all
\nother respects  except  the common entrance test.  As the common entrance test
\nis subject oriented, the prescription of the same in common alone would not in
\nany  manner  make  them  comparable  with  the  petitioners  or  vice   versa.
\nTherefore,  the  submissions  made  on  that basis will have to be rejected in
\nlimini.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  When the impugned Clause 23 is thus tested in  the  anvil
\nof  the  above  stated  factors prevailing, it will have to be held that there
\nwould be every justification in  the  State  Government  insisting  that  such
\nvaluable  service  of  its  in-service  candidates  in rural service should be
\nensured atleast for a minimum period before ever they are allowed to  join  PG
\ncourses.   In  this  context, the submission made by the learned Addl.Advocate
\nGeneral on certain aspects required to be stated.\n<\/p>\n
                25.  It was submitted that while the in-service candidates  at
\nthe  time  when  they  enter  into service are made to bound to render service
\nearlier initially for a minimum period  of  five  years  which  has  now  been
\nreduced  to  three  years  after  G.O.(2D).No.71  Health  and  Family  Welfare
\nDepartment, dated 24-10-2002, the hard fact remains that such candidates  once
\nthey  acquire  their PG qualifications, are tend to aspire for bettering their
\nprospects by switching over to the education side of the service,  where  they
\nare also  freely  accommodated  even by the Statement Government itself.  That
\nhard reality cannot be ignored while considering the  challenge  made  to  the
\nimpugned Clause  23.    Further,  in  G.O.(2D).No.71 Health and Family Welfare
\nDepartment, dated 24-10 -2002, it is stated that the period of five  years  of
\ncontinuous  service  in  Primary  Health  Centres  which was earlier made as a
\ncompulsory stipulation in respect of the Assistant Surgeons appointed  in  the
\nTamil  Nadu  Medical  Service,  had  to  be reduced to three years in order to
\nensure that uninterrupted health care facilities are  provided  to  the  rural
\npublic  and  also  to ensure regular attendance of the Medical Officers in the
\nPrimary Health Centres.  In this context, it is also relevant to refer to  the
\ndetails furnished by the respondents in the counter affidavit, wherein, it has
\nbeen  shown in paragraph 6 that overall vacancy position in the Primary Health
\nCentres in the State, is  always  constantly  maintained  at  20%,  while  the
\nvacancy position in certain most back ward areas, is at the rate of 45 to 50%.
\nSuch  statistical particulars furnished by the respondent-State are also to be
\nborne in mind while considering the challenge made in these Writ Petitions  in
\nregard  to  prescription  of three years made in the impugned Clause 23 of the
\nprospectus.\n<\/p>\n
                26.  When it was largely considered by  the  State  Government
\nwhile prescribing the condition of not less than three years to be rendered as
\na  `satisfactory continuous service’ in order to make the inservice candidates
\nto be eligible to apply for PG courses and when such consideration came to  be
\nmade  in the light of the fact that in the rural areas invariably, the Primary
\nHealth Centres remain un-served due to various other factors, it will have  to
\nbe  held that it cannot be lost sight of that the very enthusiasm shown by the
\nfresh medical graduates in entering the state service is also due to the  fact
\nthat  such  status acquired by them would enable them to seek for admission to
\nthe PG courses by getting better  preference  than  competing  with  the  open
\ncategory  candidates,  where the competition would be on a larger perspective.
\nTherefore, when such other better  preference  could  be  availed  of  by  the
\nin-service  candidates  including  special  consideration  in  the  matter  of
\nadmission to PG courses, it cannot be held that the perspective of  the  State
\nGovernment   in   prescribing   minimum  standard  limit  of  three  years  of
\nuninterrupted satisfactory service would fulfil its avowed object of  ensuring
\nuninterrupted  continuous  rural service, which objective if could be achieved
\nby such a prescription, no fault can be found with  the  State  Government  in
\nprescribing  such  a  period of three years as a minimum period in order to be
\neligible for the in-service candidates to apply for PG courses offered by  the
\nState Government in its institutions.\n<\/p>\n
                27.   Therefore,  when  there  is no statutory prohibition for
\nmaking such a prescription of three years as against two years  prescribed  in
\nthe prospectus of the previous years, it will have to be held that the present
\nprescription   of   three   years  was  not  only  against  any  statutory  or
\nconstitutional provision, but also in consonance with the benevolent objective
\nto be achieved by the State Government, viz., rendering of minimum  period  of
\nservice in  the rural areas.  However much it may be stressed on behalf of the
\npetitioners that the condition of service imposed at the time of  appointment,
\ncould be ensured and that after completion of their PG courses also they could
\nbe  compelled  to  serve  in  the  rural  areas  as  stipulated at the time of
\nappointment for a minimum period of five years or three years as the case  may
\nbe,  it will have to be stated that when the hard realities disclose that such
\na contingencies could never be achieved by the respondent-State, and when  the
\nreal  sufferers  are the rural masses, the Court can take judicial note of the
\nsaid relevant factor while upholding the  present  prescription  made  in  the
\nimpugned  Clause  23 to the effect that three years of satisfactory continuous
\nservice alone would enable the inservice candidates to be  eligible  to  apply
\nfor PG  courses.    Therefore,  I  am unable to accept the various contentions
\nraised on behalf of the petitioners that the objective to be  achieved,  viz.,
\nrural service to be performed by the in-service candidates had no nexus to the
\nprescription  made  in  the  impugned Clause 23 in order to interfere with the
\nsaid prescription made in the said clause.\n<\/p>\n
                28.  Having regard to my above said reasoning, I am unable  to
\ncountenance  any  of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners while
\nchallenging the above said impugned clause.  For the very same reasoning, I do
\nnot find any arbitrariness  also  in  the  prescription  of  the  three  years
\ncriteria  while making such in-service candidates eligible for applying to the
\nPG courses.\n<\/p>\n
                29.  The submission  made  on  behalf  of  the  petitioner  in
\nW.P.No.2704 of  2004  is  two fold.  In the first place, it was contended that
\nwhile the State would not fill up all the seats in a year by  prescribing  the
\npresent  criteria,  the  zone of consideration would get further narrowed down
\nand therefore, on this ground, the prescription of three years is liable to be
\nset aside.  On this aspect, a direct decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was
\nrelied upon by the learned Addl.  Advocate General reported  in  “2004(2)  CTC
\n227 (STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER versus S.V.BRATHEEP (MINOR) AND OTHERS)”,
\nwherein,  this  very  contention  was  negatived  by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
\nholding that the mere fact that there are vacancies in the institutions  would
\nnot  be  a  matter  which  would  go  into  question of fixing the standard of
\neducation.  Therefore, merely because all the seats did not get filled up in a
\nyear, cannot be a  ground  for  testing  the  validity  of  the  clause  or  a
\nprescription made in the impugned Clause 23 of the prospectus.\n<\/p>\n
                30.   As far as the submissions made on legitimate expectation
\nby relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court  reported  in  “2002
\n(1)  MLJ  590  (POOVIZHI versus THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS)”, the
\nsaid judgment as demonstrated by the learned Addl.Advocate  General  could  be
\neasily distinguished.  That was a case where the students of the academic year
\n2001-2002  were  deprived  of the benefit to write improvement examinations in
\nindividual subjects in the month of September or in the  subsequent  month  of
\nMarch,  2002,  by  virtue  of  the  notification  impugned  therein, which was
\nintroduced in the month of September, 2001.  In fact, the  concerned  students
\nwere  allowed to pay the fees for the examination to be held in September 2001
\nand such payments were made in the month of July 2001 itself, i.e.,  even  two
\nmonths prior  to  the issuance of the said notification.  Therefore, it was in
\nthose circumstances, the principle of legitimate expectation was held in their
\nfavour when the application of the notification impugned therein was  directed
\nto  be  postponed  only  in  respect of those students till the month of March
\n2002.  Therefore, the benefit granted to those petitioners covered by the said
\nDivision Bench Judgment cannot be applied to the case on hand  who  cannot  be
\nsaid  to have made any advancement in their service by virtue of any situation
\nwhich was offered at the instance of the State  Government  while  in  service
\nimmediately  prior to the issuance of the present prospectus, viz., 2004-2005.
\nIt will have to be held that the eligibility or the scope for aspiring to  get
\nadmitted  into PG courses itself was made known only after the issuance of the
\npresent prospectus which came to be issued for the  academic  year  2004-2005.
\nTherefore, when the prescriptions now made in the present prospectus were made
\napplicable,  it  cannot  be  held  that that would in any way crate a right of
\nlegitimate expectation in favour of the petitioner in order to  hold  that  on
\nthat  score,  the  petitioner  has  derived  any  advantage  to her benefit to
\ninvalidate the impugned Clause 23 of the prospectus of 2004-2005.\n<\/p>\n
                31.  Looked at from any angle, I do  not  find  any  scope  to
\napprove  of  the  challenges made to the validity of the impugned Clause 23 of
\nthe prospectus of the academic year 2004-2005 and grant any relief  as  prayed
\nfor in these Writ Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                32.   However,  it  will  have to be stated that in respect of
\nthose petitioners  who  were  stated  to  have  joined  the  services  of  the
\nrespondent  state  in  the  month  of February 2001, considering their plight,
\ninasmuch as in the year 2003-2004 though  the  prescribed  minimum  period  of
\nservice  was  only two years, they were ineligible to make their applications,
\ninasmuch as, as on the cut of date, viz., 1.2.2003, they had not  put  in  the
\nrequired  numbered of two years as their appointment commenced after 1-2-2001,
\nas they could join the  service  only  before  the  end  of  that  month  i.e.
\n28-2-2001.   The  other  fact  remains  that  the  candidates  who  came to be
\nrecruited along with them in that batch were fortunate enough  to  enter  into
\nservice  prior  to  1-2-2001  and thereby they became eligible to apply for PG
\ncourses as per the prospectus announced  in  2003-2004.    By  virtue  of  the
\ninterim  orders  of  this Court, since all those petitioners were permitted to
\nattend the common entrance test and by the subsequent  orders  of  this  Court
\ntheir results were also directed to be published to enable them to participate
\nin  the counselling, it was directed in the said order dated 23-3-2004 that if
\nthe petitioners come under the zone of consideration in  the  counselling  and
\nthey  record  their  option, their allotment of seats alone are to be withheld
\nawaiting the disposal of the Writ Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                33.  In such circumstances, in respect of those limited cases,
\nwhere the petitioners who were stated to have joined in between  1-2-2001  and
\n28-2-2001,  the  learned  Addl.Advocate General on instructions, fairly stated
\nthat without being quoted as a precedent, they would be allowed to participate
\nin the counselling and allotments would also be made in their  favour.    This
\ngesture  shown  by  the  State  Government  is  recorded,  which  however,  is
\nabsolutely de- hors the justification of the prescription made in the impugned
\nClause 23 of the prospectus of the year 2004-2005.\n<\/p>\n
                In the result, all the Writ Petitions fail and  the  same  are
\ndismissed.  No costs.  Consequently, all the connected W.P.M.Ps.  are closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
suk<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Secretary to Government,
\nState of Tamilnadu,
\nHigher Education Department,
\nSt.George Fort,
\nChennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.  Director of Medical Education,
\nDirectorate of Medical Education,
\nKilpauk, Chennai-600 010.\n<\/p>\n
3.  Medical Council of India,
\nrep.  by its Secretary,
\nAIWAN-E-Ghaliv Marg,
\nKotla Road, New Delhi-110 002.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Dr.D.Narmadha vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 April, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27\/04\/2004 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA WRIT PETITION No.2151 of 2004 and W.P.Nos., 2152, 2161, 2170 TO 2174, 2175 TO 2179, 2376, 2407, 2457, 2551, 2568, 2581, […]<\/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-243418","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.D.Narmadha vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 April, 2004 - 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\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.D.Narmadha vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-31T20:52:42+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=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.D.Narmadha vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-31T20:52:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":6408,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004\",\"name\":\"Dr.D.Narmadha vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-31T20:52:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.D.Narmadha vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr.D.Narmadha vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 April, 2004 - 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\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.D.Narmadha vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-31T20:52:42+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":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.D.Narmadha vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-31T20:52:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004"},"wordCount":6408,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004","name":"Dr.D.Narmadha vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-31T20:52:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-narmadha-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-27-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.D.Narmadha vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 April, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243418","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=243418"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243418\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243418"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243418"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243418"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}