{"id":259575,"date":"2004-08-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-08-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004"},"modified":"2016-09-22T18:09:03","modified_gmt":"2016-09-22T12:39:03","slug":"e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004","title":{"rendered":"E. Jayanthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">E. Jayanthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 2004<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 10\/08\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. SINGHARAVELU\n\nW.P.No.15263 of 2000 and W.P.No.18076 of 2001\nand\nWMP.NO.22192 OF 2000 &amp; 26605 OF 2001\n\n\n1. E. Jayanthi,\n   D\/o.V. Ezhumalai\n\n2. S. Vijaya Ganeswara Moorthy,\n   S\/o. Siva Moorthy    ..  Petitioners in WP.15263\/00\n\nG. Saravanan,\nS\/o.J.R. Gangadharan    ..  Petitioner in WP.18076\/01\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   rep. by its Secretary,\n   Home (Courts-II) Department,\n   Fort St. George, Chennai 9.\n\n2. The Honble High Court of\n     Judicature at Madras,\n   rep. by its Registrar General,\n   Chennai 600 104.\n\n3. The Tamil Nadu Public Service\n     Commission,\n   rep. by its Secretary,\n   Government Estate,\n   Anna Salai, Chennai 2.\n\n4. The Additional District Judge-\n    cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,\n   Vellore,\n   Vellore District.    ..  Respondents in both WPs\n\n        Petitions 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 Petitioners :  Mr.  Vijay Narayan\n\nFor Respondents :  Mr.P.S.  Sivashanmugasundaram\n                Addl.Govt.  Pleader\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">(The order of the Court was made by P.K.  MISRA,J)<\/p>\n<p>        Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        2.  The petitioners have prayed for  issuing  writ  of  certiorarified<br \/>\nmandamus  for quashing Roc.No.1176\/2000\/A dated 2.8.2000 and further directing<br \/>\nthe respondents to continue the services of the petitioners as  copyists  with<br \/>\nall consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">        3.  The facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are as follows<br \/>\n:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">        Respondent  No.1  is the State Government, Respondent No.2 is the High<br \/>\nCourt, represented by the Registrar General, Respondent No.3 is the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nPublic Service Commission and the respondent No.4 is the  Additional  District<br \/>\nJudge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">        Respondent  No.1  by  letter  dated  13.8.1996 to the Respondent No.2,<br \/>\nrequested the latter to send proposal for sanction of 394 posts of typists for<br \/>\nallotment to various courts  through  out  the  State.    Subsequently,  after<br \/>\nreceiving  particulars from Respondent No.2, Respondent No.1 by G.O.Ms.No.1699<br \/>\nHome (Courts-II) Department, dated 11.11.1996 accorded sanction for 394  posts<br \/>\nof  typists  for  a period of one year and subsequently by G.O.RT.No.264 dated<br \/>\n10.2.1999, sanction was accorded for further continuance of 348  posts,  which<br \/>\nhave been filled up out of 394 posts originally sanctioned for the period till<br \/>\n30.6.2000.   Appointment  to  the post of typist can be made by promotion from<br \/>\nAssistant Superintendent of Copyists, Examiners, Ameenas, Readers and copyists<br \/>\nor by direct recruitment or for special reasons by recruitment by persons from<br \/>\nany other service.  In the newly created vacancies of  typists  coming  within<br \/>\nthe  Unit  of  the  fourth respondent, 9 existing copyists were promoted and 4<br \/>\nexisting junior assistants were transferred and 1 examiner was promoted to the<br \/>\npost of typists.  In the consequent vacancies  to  the  post  of  copyists  or<br \/>\njunior  assistants  or examiner, as the case may be, 14 persons were appointed<br \/>\nas copyists by direct recruitment through Employment  Exchange  including  the<br \/>\npresent petitioners on various dates between January, 1996 and February, 1997.<br \/>\nThe post  of  copyist  comes  under Class-V of the Service.  Such persons were<br \/>\nappointed by the fourth respondent temporarily and subsequently their services<br \/>\nwere regularised as copyists and they were placed on probation for a period of<br \/>\ntwo years within a continuous period of three years.  In the  meantime,  three<br \/>\npersons,  who  had  been  transferred from the post of junior assistant to the<br \/>\npost of typist were further promoted to the post of  Assistant  and  in  their<br \/>\nplaces,  the first 3 persons, who had been appointed as copyists were promoted<br \/>\nto the post of typist and thereafter three  more  persons  were  appointed  as<br \/>\ntypist by  direct  recruitment through the Employment Exchange.  Subsequently,<br \/>\nanother person was promoted as junior assistant  and  in  her  place,  one  K.<br \/>\nChitra was appointed as copyist.  Against 394 posts of typists which have been<br \/>\ncreated  by  G.O.Ms.No.1699,  168  persons  were directly appointed as typists<br \/>\nthrough employment exchange pending selection of  persons  through  the  Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Public Service Commission.  On regular selection by the Tamil Nadu Public<br \/>\nService  Commission, those 168 persons, who had been appointed as typists were<br \/>\nsought to  be  ousted  from  service.    At  that  stage,   they   had   filed<br \/>\nWP.No.8101\/2000 before  the High Court.  At that stage, the stand taken by the<br \/>\npresent respondent No.2 was to the effect that apart  from  168  persons,  who<br \/>\nhave been appointed from the employment exchange, rest of the persons had been<br \/>\npromoted  from  the  lower  posts  of  copyists,  etc., and had been regularly<br \/>\npromoted and those persons who had been regularly promoted cannot be  replaced<br \/>\nby  the  persons  recruited in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service<br \/>\nCommission.   However,  the  respondent  No.1  allotted  candidates  recruited<br \/>\nthrough  Tamil  Nadu  Public  Service  Commission even in respect of the posts<br \/>\nfilled by promotion among  copyists,  etc.,  and  thereafter  by  order  dated<br \/>\n2.8.2000,  7  persons  were  reverted  from  the post of typist to the post of<br \/>\ncopyist and one person was reverted from the post of typist  to  the  post  of<br \/>\nexaminer of  copies.    Out  of  the  copyists,  who  have  been ousted in the<br \/>\naforesaid process, three persons including the present petitioners had already<br \/>\nbeen regularised as copyists.  It is the case of the  petitioners  that  since<br \/>\nthey  had  already  been  regularised  as  copyists, they should not have been<br \/>\nousted from service even without following any procedure or even  without  any<br \/>\nnotice.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">                4.  A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the fourth<br \/>\nrespondent.   In  the  said counter affidavit, it is indicated that as per the<br \/>\nTamil  Nadu  Judicial  Ministerial  Service  Rules,  the  ratio  between   the<br \/>\ndepartmental candidates (insiders) and the direct recruits ( outsiders) is 2 :<br \/>\n2,  and therefore, out of 14 posts of typist made available to the Unit of the<br \/>\nfourth respondent, 7 posts were to be filled up by the departmental candidates<br \/>\nfrom the feeder category and the remaining 7 candidates should be  filled  uop<br \/>\nby the  candidates  allotted  by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.  By<br \/>\nRoc.No.3202\/96 dated 29.11.1996, 7 posts of typist meant for the  departmental<br \/>\ncandidates have  been  filled  up.  Since the allotment of candidates by Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Public Service Commission was likely to take long  time,by  Roc.3202\/1996<br \/>\ndated  29.11.1996,  six  senior  most  approved  copyists  and one senior most<br \/>\napproved Examiner of Copies were temporarily promoted to the post  of  typist,<br \/>\nwho  shall be replaced by the candidates allotted by Tamil Nadu Public Service<br \/>\nCommission as and when available.  On temporary promotion  of  such  copyists,<br \/>\nvacancy arose for six posts of copyists and one post of examiner of copies and<br \/>\nfor such temporary vacancies, six persons have been recruited as copyists from<br \/>\nthe employment exchange and it was so indicated in their order of appointment.<br \/>\nOne  temporary  vacancy  of examiner of copies was filled-up by promoting from<br \/>\nthe feeder category of Record Clerk,  who  got  his  subsequent  promotion  as<br \/>\ncopyist.   Subsequently,  in  1998-99,  since  3 permanent posts of typist got<br \/>\npromoted  as  Assistants,  in  their  places  3  senior  most  copyists   were<br \/>\ntemporarily  promoted  as  typists  and  consequently,  3  other  persons were<br \/>\nappointed as copyists  in  the  consequential  vacancies.    Subsequently,  on<br \/>\nappointment  of  typists  on  regular  selection  by Tamil Nadu Public Service<br \/>\nCommission, the persons who had been temporarily accommodated as typists  were<br \/>\nreverted  back  to  their  original  posts  which they were initially holding.<br \/>\nBecause of the aforesaid, as a necessary consequence, the persons who had been<br \/>\ntemporarily appointed as  typists  had  to  be  ousted  from  their  temporary<br \/>\nservice.   It  has been further indicated that since there has been no regular<br \/>\nvacancy, such persons could not have been regularised.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">                5.  Having  heard  the  learned  counsels  appearing  for  the<br \/>\nparties  at  length,  we are afraid that the relief claimed by the petitioners<br \/>\ncannot be granted to them.  It is  of  course  true  that  after  having  been<br \/>\ntemporarily   appointed,   fourth   respondent   has   passed  an  order  for<br \/>\nregularisation.  However, in the absence  of  any  sanctioned  vacancy,  such<br \/>\naction of the fourth respondent could not have conferred a permanent status on<br \/>\nthe petitioners.    Narration of the events, as indicated in the writ petition<br \/>\nand the counter affidavi  t,  makes  it  clear  that  such  persons  had  been<br \/>\nappointed   against  the  consequential  vacancies  caused  due  to  temporary<br \/>\npromotion on permanent incumbents.  Since those persons  have  come  to  their<br \/>\noriginal  posts  in  view  of the allotment of candidates by Tamil Nadu Public<br \/>\nService Commission as per the Rules, the present petitioners have to give way.<br \/>\nThe situation faced by the petitioners is  akin  to  the  case  of  ouster  of<br \/>\nservice on  account  of  abolition  of the post itself.  The principle that an<br \/>\nincumbent has no right  to  continue  in  service  when  the  post  itself  is<br \/>\nabolished is  applicable to the present situation.  The appointment of persons<br \/>\nthrough Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has already been upheld.    As  a<br \/>\nnecessary  consequence  of the said fact, the persons who had been temporarily<br \/>\nholding the post of typists, who  were  appointed  on  regular  basis  against<br \/>\nsubstantive  posts  of copyists had to come back to their original posts, thus<br \/>\nreplacing the present petitioners.  In such circumstances, even though  ouster<br \/>\nfrom service may appear to be unjust in law, the petitioners cannot be helped.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">                6.   Learned  counsel  for  the petitioners has submitted that<br \/>\nmany vacancies would arise in future and keeping in view their  experience  as<br \/>\nwell as their legitimate expectation, a direction should be issued for regular<br \/>\nappointment in  future vacancy.  Even though such a direction cannot be issued<br \/>\nat this stage, keeping in view the peculiar facts  and  circumstances  of  the<br \/>\ncase,  a  direction  can  be  issued to the effect that the application of the<br \/>\npetitioners for appointment in any future vacancy should be given priority and<br \/>\neven if any such petitioner crosses the upper age for entering  into  service,<br \/>\nsuch  upper  age  limit must be taken to have been relaxed and crossing of age<br \/>\nlimit shall not be considered as a bar.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">                7.  Subject to  the  aforesaid  observations,  both  the  writ<br \/>\npetitions are   disposed   of.    Consequently,  the  connected  miscellaneous<br \/>\npetitions are closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>dpk<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">1.  The State of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\nrep.  by its Secretary,<br \/>\nHome (Courts-II) Department,<br \/>\nFort St.  George, Chennai 9.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">2.  The Honble High Court of<br \/>\nJudicature at Madras,<br \/>\nrep.  by its Registrar General,<br \/>\nChennai 600 104.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">3.  The Tamil Nadu Public Service<br \/>\nCommission,<br \/>\nrep.  by its Secretary,<br \/>\nGovernment Estate,<br \/>\nAnna Salai, Chennai 2.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">4.  The Additional District Judge-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nVellore,<br \/>\nVellore District.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court E. Jayanthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10\/08\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. SINGHARAVELU W.P.No.15263 of 2000 and W.P.No.18076 of 2001 and WMP.NO.22192 OF 2000 &amp; 26605 OF 2001 1. [&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-259575","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>E. Jayanthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 2004 - 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\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"E. Jayanthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-22T12:39:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"E. Jayanthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-22T12:39:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1534,\"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\\\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004\",\"name\":\"E. Jayanthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-22T12:39:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"E. Jayanthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 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":"E. Jayanthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 2004 - 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\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"E. Jayanthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-22T12:39:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"E. Jayanthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 2004","datePublished":"2004-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-22T12:39:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004"},"wordCount":1534,"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\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004","name":"E. Jayanthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-22T12:39:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-jayanthi-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-august-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"E. Jayanthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 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\/259575","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=259575"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259575\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}