{"id":254008,"date":"2003-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003"},"modified":"2015-09-03T10:34:37","modified_gmt":"2015-09-03T05:04:37","slug":"s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003","title":{"rendered":"S.K. Mathena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.K. Mathena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2003<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 14\/08\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\n\nWRIT PETITION.NO.1503 OF 2003\nand\nWPMP.NO.1878 OF 2003\n\n\n1.  S.K. Mathena\n    D\/o. Kader\n\n2.  M. Deivamani,\n    D\/o. S. Mani\n\n3.  K. Thilagam,\n    D\/o. Kandappan\n\n4.  S. Manjula\n    D\/o. Sidheswaran\n\n5.  B.G. Sumathi,\n    D\/o. Govindha Chetty\n\n6.  A. Umamageswari,\n    D\/o. Ayyasamy\n\n7.  K. Valarnila,\n    D\/o. Kumaravel\n\n8.  A. Moorthy,\n    S\/o. Paani Sammal\n\n9.  K. Sengodan,\n    S\/o. Karuppanna Nadar\n\n10. G. Vivekanandan,\n    S\/o. Govinda Chetty\n\n11. G. Mariyappan,\n    S\/o. Ganapathy\n\n12. S. Kalayanaraman,\n    S\/o. Srinivasan\n\n13. A. Jayasankar,\n    S\/o. Ambikapathi\n\n14. S. Gunasekar,\n    S\/o. Subramanian\n\n15. K.R. Baskaran,\n    S\/o. Ramadass\n\n16. M. Rajasekaran,\n    S\/o. Murugaiyan\n\n17. V. Kalyanasundaram,\n    S\/o. Vinayagam\n\n18. A.M. Elumalai,\n    S\/o. Muniyan\n\n19. C. Chinnadurai,\n    S\/o. Chinnathambi\n\n20. R. Lawrance Feklix Thomas,\n    S\/o. Rayappan\n\n21. H. Siraj\n    S\/o. Hussain\n\n22. K. Saravanan,\n    S\/o. Kamaraj\n\n23. V. Vijayakumar,\n    S\/o. Vaithiyalingam\n\n24. A. Palani,\n    S\/o. Ammavasai\n\n25. R. Kanagaraj,\n    S\/o. Ramalingam\n\n26. N.P. Kumar,\n    S\/o. Perumal\n27. S. Senthil Velavan,\n    S\/o. Madappan\n\n28. A. Sagayaraj,\n    S\/o. Arulanantham\n\n29. P. Ramachandran,\n    S\/o. Parthasarathy\n\n30. M. Ravichandiran,\n    S\/o. Murugesan\n\n31. K. Chandran\n    S\/o. Kandi Gounder\n\n32. C. Ananthan,\n    S\/o. Cinnamuthu\n\n33. A. Lila,\n    D\/o. Syed Ameer\n\n34. R. Tamilarasi,\n    D\/o. Rangasami\n\n35. E. Vennila,\n    D\/o. Edumann\n\n36. J. Umamaheswari,\n    M\/o. Mallika                        ..  Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   rep. by its Secretary to Govt.,\n   Education Department,\n   Fort St. George, Chennai 9.\n\n2. The Director,\n   Teacher Education Research and\n   Training, College Road,\n   Chennai 6.                   ..  Respondents\n\n\n        Petition filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.K.M.  Vijayan\n                Senior Counsel for\n                Mr.A.  Chandrasekar\n\nFor Respondents 1-2:  Mr.P.S.  Sivashanmuga Sundaram\n                Addl.  Govt.  Pleader\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                Prayer  in  this  writ  petition  is  to  issue Certiorarified<br \/>\nMandamus to quash the order dated 26.12.2002 in Na.Ka.17837\/C4\/2001 issued  by<br \/>\nthe  second  respondent and direct the respondents to admit the petitioners in<br \/>\nDiploma Teacher Education in the respective Government District  Institute  of<br \/>\nEducational and Training.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                2.  To appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it is<br \/>\nnecessary to  notice  the chequered events.  Royal Teacher Training Institute,<br \/>\nKrishnagiri was established in 1989.  Since there was some disputes  regarding<br \/>\nrecognition,  W.P.No.14756  of  1991  had  been filed and by virtue of interim<br \/>\norder in WMP.No.22140 of 1991,  temporary  recognition  was  granted  to  such<br \/>\ninstitute with  effect  from  3.4.1992.    Subsequently,  however, order dated<br \/>\n22.9.1992 was issued indicating that temporary recognition was effective  from<br \/>\n14.6.1989.    This  recognition,  however,  was  shortlived  inasmuch  as  the<br \/>\nrecognition granted to this institute as well as many other  teacher  training<br \/>\ninstitute was quashed pursuant to the order of the High Court in WP.No.9494 of<br \/>\n1992.   To alleviate the difficulties faced by the students who had studied in<br \/>\nsuch institutes, which were subsequently de-recognised, the Government  issued<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.685  dated  16.7.1993  stipulating that the students shall undergo a<br \/>\nrefresher course.   The  above  order  of  the  Government  to  extricate  the<br \/>\nunfortunate  students  also proved futile as the said order was quashed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court in W.P.No.15463 of 1993 and other connected matters.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">                3.  Long thereafter the Government again  thought  of  helping<br \/>\nthe  unfortunate  students  who  had  undergone training in such de-recognised<br \/>\ninstitutes and G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 7.8.2001 was issued wherein it was  decided<br \/>\nthat  60%  of  the total seats would be allotted to the regular candidates and<br \/>\nremaining 40% of the seats would be allotted to the affected students who have<br \/>\nstudied in de-recognised teacher training institutes.    Since  the  aforesaid<br \/>\nG.O.   has  got  some bearing in deciding the present case, it is desirable to<br \/>\nextract the relevant portions :-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">         .  .  .  2.  While admitting  the  students  through  Single  Window<br \/>\nSystem, the Govt.  orders that the following norms should be followed:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">        i) .  .  .\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">        ii)  Excluding the above 60% of seats, the remaining 40% of seats will<br \/>\nbe allotted through Single Window System for affected students who had studied<br \/>\nin de-recognised Teacher Training Institutes.  If such affected candidates are<br \/>\nnot available for 40% of allotment,  they  would  be  filled  by  the  regular<br \/>\ncandidates of the respective communities.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        iii) For the 40% of seats allotted for the affected candidates, at the<br \/>\nfirst level those who had written the second year public Examinations but were<br \/>\nnot  issued  the  diplomas,  and  if  such  candidates  are not available, the<br \/>\naffected students those who had written the First year Public Examinations and<br \/>\nwere not issued the diploma mark sheets  will  be  selected  through  communal<br \/>\nreservations.   If  sufficient  number  of  candidates  are  not  available in<br \/>\nselecting the students who had written the Second Year Examinations  but  were<br \/>\nnot  issued  diplomas  through  Communal  reservations,  the  students  of the<br \/>\nrespective communities who had written the first year  Examinations  but  were<br \/>\nnot issued  the  marksheets  will  be  selected.    If  sufficient  number  of<br \/>\ncandidates are not available for the above two categories,  the  students  who<br \/>\nhad undergone First Year Teacher Training course may be considered.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">        iv)  In 40% of seats allotted for affected students in the sections of<br \/>\nminority languages, if such applications are  not  available  for  the  above,<br \/>\nchances  may  be  given  to affected students who had not completed First Year<br \/>\nTeacher Training Course.   However  the  details  of  such  students  who  had<br \/>\nundergone  short  term refresher Course in Government Higher Secondary Schools<br \/>\nallotted for them will be checked with the School list obtained.  Even then if<br \/>\nsufficient number of applications are not received, those seats will be filled<br \/>\nup from the respective communal candidates of regular candidates.  Only  those<br \/>\nwho  had  studied  in  de-recognised  Teacher  Training  Institutes  alone are<br \/>\neligible.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">        v) There will  be  separate  applications  for  regular  students  and<br \/>\naffected students.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">        vi)  The  genuinity  of  the  affected  students  who  had written the<br \/>\nexaminations will be verified with TMR maintained by  the  Director  of  Govt.<br \/>\nExaminations.   The  candidates  who had undergone short term refresher course<br \/>\nwill be verified with the list sent by the Headmasters of the  Govt.    Higher<br \/>\nSecondary Schools in which such programme was conducted.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">        .  .  .<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">                4.   Soon  thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 7.9.2001 was issued<br \/>\ncreating additional seats in the District  Teachers  Training  Institutes  and<br \/>\nGovernment Teachers  Training  Institutes.    The  relevant  portion is to the<br \/>\nfollowing effect:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">         .  .   .    The  plight  of  the  affected  28366  students  of  the<br \/>\nderecognised  private teachers training institutes consequent on the judgments<br \/>\nof the High Court of Judicature, Chennai,  and  the  Supreme  Court  was  duly<br \/>\nexamined and  considered  earlier.    By revising 40% of seats in the District<br \/>\nTeachers Training Institute and Government Teachers  Training  Institutes  for<br \/>\nsuch  of  those  affected  students,  2391  students  alone  have  so far been<br \/>\nadmitted.  It will take about 20 years time to give such training as aforesaid<br \/>\nto all the remaining students.  Keeping this in view and in  the  interest  of<br \/>\nsuch  kind  of affected students, it is proposed to create additional seats in<br \/>\nDistrict Institutes for Teacher Education and Training and Government Teachers<br \/>\nTraining Institutes and admit all the qualified affected students relaxing the<br \/>\nmaximum age limit, for regular two years training in such institutes  and  the<br \/>\nGovernment after taking such decision issue orders as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">        (i)  A  Regular  two  years  training  will  be  given to the affected<br \/>\nstudents in the following DIETS and Government  TTIS  as  mentioned  against<br \/>\neach  Institute in 2001-2002 by creating 10729 additional seats excluding 1048<br \/>\nseats i.e.40% of seats already admitted in accordance with the  discussion  in<br \/>\nthe National Council for Teachers Education Meeting, held on 29.08.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">        The  Principals  of  the  concerned  Institutes  shall  apply  in  the<br \/>\nprescribed form to the National Council for Teacher  Education  Committee  for<br \/>\nnecessary permission for creation of the above additional seats.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">        (ii)  Relaxation  of  maximum  age limit for admission to the training<br \/>\nwill be  granted  to  the  affected  students.    As   for   the   educational<br \/>\nqualification for admission to the teachers training, the existing educational<br \/>\nqualification  (i.e.,  a pass in +2 examination for SC and ST students and 50%<br \/>\nof the total marks in +2 examination for other  community  students)  will  be<br \/>\nfollowed.  .  .  .<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">                5.   In the background of the above admitted developments, the<br \/>\npetitioners and others claiming to be the students of Royal  Teacher  Training<br \/>\nInstitute filed  WP.No.19757  of  2001  to  get the benefit of G.O.Ms.  No.136<br \/>\ndated 7.9.2001 as they had not been permitted to attend  the  counselling  for<br \/>\nadmission in DTE course in District Institute of Educational and Training.  By<br \/>\ninterim  order  dated 17.10.2001, 72 applicants in the said writ petition were<br \/>\npermitted to attend  the  counselling  subject  to  the  result  of  the  writ<br \/>\npetition.   However,  due  to  want  of  proper communication, only present 36<br \/>\npetitioners were able to attend the counselling on 23.7.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">                6.  Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of  with  the<br \/>\nfollowing observation :-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">         .  .    .    Without going into the merits and as the 36 Petitioners<br \/>\nhave already attended the counselling, the respondents are directed to declare<br \/>\nthe result of the counselling conducted on  23.7.2002,  if  according  to  the<br \/>\nrespondents, the 36 petitioners are eligible, and if they are qualified in all<br \/>\nrespects  as  per  the Government Order, on merits the respondents may declare<br \/>\nthe result of the counselling.  This Court is not expressing  any  opinion  in<br \/>\nrespect  of  the  merits  of  the  contentions  or  the  claim  of the 36 writ<br \/>\nPetitioners, who attended the counselling.   the  result  of  the  counselling<br \/>\nconducted on 23.7.2002 shall be declared within two weeks from today.  ..<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">                7.   Pursuant  to  the  aforesaid  direction,  the order dated<br \/>\n26.12.2002, which is  impugned  in  the  present  writ  petition,  was  issued<br \/>\nrejecting  the  prayer of the petitioner for being admitted on the ground that<br \/>\nthe petitioners had not written second or first year examinations nor they had<br \/>\nundergone the short-term refresher course and their names were  not  found  in<br \/>\nTMR.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">                8.   It  is  the  contention  of  the  petitioners  that Royal<br \/>\nTeachers Training Institute, where they have undertaken  their  studies,  was<br \/>\ngiven  temporary  recognition  only  in 1992 with retrospective effect from 14<br \/>\n.06.1989 as a result of which  none  of  the  students  had  appeared  at  the<br \/>\nexamination  and  similarly  had no occasion to undergone short-term refresher<br \/>\ncourse.  It has been submitted  that  in  order  to  eligible  for  undergoing<br \/>\npresent  two  years  training programme, there is no requirement that a person<br \/>\nmust have undergone short-term refresher course and  the  application  of  the<br \/>\npetitioners had been rejected on erroneous and unsustainable grounds.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">                9.   A  counter  affidavit  has  been  filed  on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondents wherein after narrating various facts and developments, which have<br \/>\nalready been noticed above, it had been stated that since the petitioners  had<br \/>\nnot  appeared  at the examination nor had undergone the refresher course, they<br \/>\nwere found ineligible.  It is stated that<br \/>\n         .  .  .  out of the 36 petitioners  21  candidates  studied  in  the<br \/>\nInstitute during  1989-91  and  15  candidates  during  1990-92.    They  have<br \/>\ncompleted the two year course and have to appear for  the  examination.    But<br \/>\nthey  have  not  written  their  examination  since  the  institution  was not<br \/>\nrecognised during that period.  According to the selection  procedure  of  the<br \/>\naffected  students,  selection  was made based on the marks obtained in the +2<br \/>\nexamination from among the candidates who have written the second year Diploma<br \/>\nin Teacher Education Examination.  Since  the  petitioners  have  not  written<br \/>\ntheir  II  year  of  (or)  I  year  examination  they  were not considered for<br \/>\nselection.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">It has been further stated that<\/p>\n<p>         .  .  .  It is submitted that the criteria that affected  candidates<br \/>\nmust  have  written their 1st year examination or 2nd year examination or must<br \/>\nhave undergone the refresher course is to ascertain that they have been really<br \/>\naffected after being enrolled in these derecognised institutes.  If we do  not<br \/>\ninsist  on  these three criteria which are checked with Government records and<br \/>\ngrant  admission  based  merely  on  the  course  certificate  issued  by  the<br \/>\nde-recognised   Teacher   Training   Institutes  then  any  number  of  course<br \/>\ncertificates to any number of candidates will open  a  flood  gate  that  will<br \/>\nthrow the  system  to  the  wind.  Candidates with low marks and over age, who<br \/>\ncannot get admission into the regular District  Institutes  of  Education  and<br \/>\nTraining and Teacher Training Institutes, which is based on merit under Single<\/p>\n<p>Window  System, will manage to get any number of course certificates from such<br \/>\nde-recognised institutions under this cover.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">                                (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_24\">                10.  The relevant provisions contained in  G.O.Ms.No.112  have<br \/>\nalready been  extracted.   A careful and combined perusal of paragraphs 2(ii),\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_25\">(iii) and (iv) and (vi) would make  it  clear  that  40%  of  the  seats  were<br \/>\nreserved  for  the  affected students who have studied in derecognised teacher<br \/>\ntraining institutes, which is evident from paragraph 2(ii).   Under  paragraph<br \/>\n2(iii),  it  is  evident  that the Government wanted to give precedence to the<br \/>\nstudents who had written second year public examinations, but were not  issued<br \/>\nthe  diplomas  and  if  sufficient number of candidates are not available, the<br \/>\nstudents  who  had  written  first  year  examination,  but  were  not  issued<br \/>\nmarksheets will  be  selected.    If  sufficient  number of candidates are not<br \/>\navailable for the above two categories, the students who have undergone  first<br \/>\nyear teacher  training  course  may  be  considered.    Under  2(iv),  if such<br \/>\napplications are not available for the above, chances  may  be  given  to  the<br \/>\nstudents who  have not completed first year teacher training course.  There is<br \/>\nno basic requirement that a  student  has  to  undergo  short  term  refresher<br \/>\ncourse.   Reference  to the students undergoing short term refresher course is<br \/>\nwith a view to ascertain and to identify  as  to  whether  such  students  had<br \/>\ncompleted  the  two years course or had studied first year course, because the<br \/>\nintention was to help  the  students  who  had  studied  in  those  institutes<br \/>\nsubsequently de-recognised.   Preference which was to be given was confined to<br \/>\nthe students who had appeared at the second year final examination or  at  the<br \/>\nfirst year examination as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_26\">                11.   As  already  noticed,  subsequently  G.O.Ms.No.136 dated<br \/>\n7.9.2001 was issued creating more seats for the affected students.   The  said<br \/>\nG.O.  is  obviously  to be read along with G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 7.8.2001.  From<br \/>\nparagraph 2(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.112, it is evident that if the  candidates,  who<br \/>\nhad  appeared in the second year examination or the first year examination, as<br \/>\nthe case may be, were not available, the students who had undergone the  first<br \/>\nyear teacher  training  course  may be considered.  This latter category would<br \/>\nobviously include the students who had also  completed  the  second  year,  as<br \/>\nobviously  then they could have done so only after having completed first year<br \/>\nteacher training course.  In other words, first preference was to be given  to<br \/>\nthose  students who had appeared in the second year examination and thereafter<br \/>\npreference would be given  to  those  who  had  appeared  in  the  first  year<br \/>\nexamination  and  after giving preference to the above categories, other seats<br \/>\nwould be filled up from among  the  students  who  had  undergone  first  year<br \/>\nteacher training  course.    In  order to identify the students, reference was<br \/>\nmade to verification with TMR maintained by the Director or with reference  to<br \/>\nthe list  sent  by  the Headmasters relating to the refresher course.  But, it<br \/>\ncannot be held that the person who had not undergone the refresher  course  is<br \/>\nnot  eligible  to take the benefit of the subsequent liberalised policy of the<br \/>\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_27\">                12.  From various Government Orders it is evident that  it  is<br \/>\nthe  intention  of  the  Government  to  help the unfortunate students who had<br \/>\nundergone  the  training  in   such   Institutes   which   were   subsequently<br \/>\nderecognised.   It  is  of course true that while considering the eligibility,<br \/>\nthe authorities are obviously to be satisfied about  the  genuineness  of  the<br \/>\nclaim  made  by  a  particular  student  regarding  his  undergoing study in a<br \/>\nparticular institute which had been subsequently  derecognised.    That  would<br \/>\nalways depend upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_28\">                13.   In  the  present case, even though some doubts have been<br \/>\nexpressed at the time of hearing, in the impugned order no such doubt had been<br \/>\nindicated and the only ground of rejection appears to be  the  fact  that  the<br \/>\napplicant  had  not  appeared  at  the  examination  and had not undergone the<br \/>\nshort-term course.  If a student is otherwise able to establish  that  he  has<br \/>\nundergone  the  training  course,  he is equally eligible to avail the benefit<br \/>\neven though he has not undergone the shortterm refresher course.   One  cannot<br \/>\nlost  sight of the fact that in the impugned order no doubt has been expressed<br \/>\nregarding the present petitioners having completed the training.  Moreover, in<br \/>\nparagraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it has been categorically stated by  the<br \/>\nrespondents that<br \/>\n         .  .    .    Out  of the 36 petitioners 21 candidates studied in the<br \/>\nInstitute during  1989-91  and  15  candidates  during  1990-92.    They  have<br \/>\ncompleted the  two  year  course  and have to appear for the examination.  But<br \/>\nthey have  not  written  their  examination  since  the  institution  was  not<br \/>\nrecognised during that period.  .  .  .<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_29\">                14.   In  view  of  the  aforesaid  statement  in  the counter<br \/>\naffidavit, there is  no  doubt  that  the  present  petitioners  were  genuine<br \/>\nstudents,  who  had  completed  the  course,  but  they were not appear at the<br \/>\nexamination and thereafter the temporary recognition stood withdrawn by virtue<br \/>\nof the decision of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_30\">                15.  For the aforesaid reasons, I  quash  the  impugned  order<br \/>\ndated  26.12.2002  and direct that the petitioners should be given the benefit<br \/>\nof G.O.Ms.No.112.  If the admission to the course for the year 2002-20  03  is<br \/>\nnot  over,  benefit  may be extended to them, otherwise benefit maybe given in<br \/>\nthe current year.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_31\">Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>dpk\/ksr<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_32\">1.  The State of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\nrep.  by its Secretary to Govt.,<br \/>\nEducation Department,<br \/>\nFort St.  George, Chennai 9.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_33\">2.  The Director,<br \/>\nTeacher Education Research and<br \/>\nTraining, College Road,<br \/>\nChennai 6.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_34\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.K. Mathena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14\/08\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA WRIT PETITION.NO.1503 OF 2003 and WPMP.NO.1878 OF 2003 1. S.K. Mathena D\/o. Kader 2. M. Deivamani, D\/o. S. Mani 3. K. Thilagam, D\/o. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-254008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.K. Mathena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.K. Mathena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-03T05:04:37+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.K. Mathena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-03T05:04:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2591,\"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\\\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003\",\"name\":\"S.K. Mathena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-03T05:04:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.K. Mathena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"S.K. Mathena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.K. Mathena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-03T05:04:37+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.K. Mathena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2003","datePublished":"2003-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-03T05:04:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003"},"wordCount":2591,"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\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003","name":"S.K. Mathena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-03T05:04:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mathena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.K. Mathena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2003"}]},{"@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\/254008","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=254008"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254008\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}