{"id":268463,"date":"2003-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-06-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003"},"modified":"2014-12-01T21:39:13","modified_gmt":"2014-12-01T16:09:13","slug":"union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 June, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 June, 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: 30\/06\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice V.S.SIRPURKAR\nand\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.THANIKACHALAM\n\nWrit Petition No. 19359 of 1999\nand\nW.P.M.P.No. 28388 of 1999\n\n1. Union of India\n   rep. by the Post Master General\n   Central Region\n   Tiruchirappalli  620 001.\n\n2. Superintendent of Post Offices\n   Karur Postal Division\n   Karur - 639 001.                                     .. Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Central Administrative Tribunal\n   rep. by its Registrar\n   High Court Campus,\n   Chennai  600 104.\n\n2. R.Kadhirvel\n   Ex.Branch Postmaster\n   Ariyur Village &amp; Post\n   K.Parmathy - 639 111.                                .. Respondents\n\n                Petition filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of  India\npraying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.\n\n!For Petitioners ..  Mr.R.Santhanam\n                Senior Central Govt.\n                Standing Counsel\n\n^For Respondent2 ..  Mr.O.Venkatachalam\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">(The Order of the Court was made by V.S.SIRPURKAR,J)<br \/>\n        It  is again an unfortunate case where a Scheduled Caste candidate was<br \/>\nselected as the Extra Departmental Branch Post Master at a place called Ariyur<br \/>\nin pursuance of the selection held somewhere in the year 1997.  That selection<br \/>\nwas  challenged  by  way  of  a  show  cause  notice  issued  to  him  by  the<br \/>\nSuperintendent of  Post  Offices.   In the show cause notice, it was suggested<br \/>\nthat the selection itself was found to be bad, as  three  eligible  candidates<br \/>\nwere not  available  to  compete  with  the second respondent.  On that ground<br \/>\nalone, perhaps the exercise to examine the selection process was gone ahead by<br \/>\nthe Superior Officer of the Superintendent of  Post  Offices  and  it  was  in<br \/>\npursuance of the directions issued by him that the said show cause notice came<br \/>\nto be issued.  The second respondent gave an answer to this show cause notice,<br \/>\nbut  in  that  answer  unfortunately  the second respondent has not taken up a<br \/>\nposition that there were in fact more than three eligible candidates available<br \/>\nat the time of the interview or at the time of the selection.  The show  cause<br \/>\nnotice  instead  came  to  be  challenged  on  the  ground that firstly it was<br \/>\nbelated, secondly it pertains to a Schedule Caste candidate and  thirdly,  the<br \/>\ncandidate  selected  had  all  the  necessary  qualifications for eligibility.<br \/>\nUnfortunately, however, that explanation was not accepted and he  came  to  be<br \/>\nslapped with the termination order, which termination he challenged before the<br \/>\nCentral Administrative  Tribunal.  The Central Administrative Tribunal relying<br \/>\nupon another judgment, in common batch cases, held that  the  termination  was<br \/>\nbad  as  according  to  the  Tribunal  there  were as many as eight candidates<br \/>\navailable for the interview and therefore, there could be no question of  more<br \/>\nthan three  candidates not being available for selection.  It is this order of<br \/>\nthe Central Administrative Tribunal, which is challenged in the  present  writ<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        2.  Mr.R.Santhanam, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel<br \/>\npoints  out that the Tribunal has nowhere considered the contentions raised on<br \/>\nbehalf of the Central Government  that  at  the  time  of  selection,  it  was<br \/>\nimperative for all the candidates to give their property details by 05.05.1997<br \/>\nand  that  no  candidate  had  given  the property details or the certificates<br \/>\nregarding the existence of the property in their name.    It  was  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent  alone who, probably, had given the certificate stating that he was<br \/>\na joint holder of the property, but,  however,  he  had  also  not  given  the<br \/>\ncertificate  of exclusive ownership of the property, which certificate came to<br \/>\nbe given only on 22.05.1997 i.e., 17 days after the notified  date.    Learned<br \/>\ncounsel  points  out  that the factual finding of the Tribunal that there were<br \/>\neight candidates available is not correct for the simple reason  that  it  has<br \/>\nnowhere  come  on record that all those eight candidates or at least more than<br \/>\nthree out of them had given the details of their properties.    We  have  gone<br \/>\nthrough  the  findings  of the Tribunal and we also do not find any where that<br \/>\nthe Tribunal has in any way supported its finding of fact by holding that  all<br \/>\nthe  eight  candidates  or  at least more than three out of them had given the<br \/>\nproperty details on or before 05.05.1997.  In that  view,  we  are  unable  to<br \/>\naccept the  finding of fact by the Tribunal.  Once that finding goes, then the<br \/>\nonly material available on  record  would  be  the  detection  by  the  higher<br \/>\nauthority,  who  went  into  the  selection  process  and found that the eight<br \/>\ncandidates, who came for the interview, had not given the property details.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">        3.  It seems that the Tribunal was more impressed on  account  of  the<br \/>\nfact  that  the Tribunal in the earlier judgment had expressed an opinion that<br \/>\nsuch property details were not liable to be given at the  notified  date,  but<br \/>\nsuch details  could be supplied even after the selection process.  However, we<br \/>\nfind that the judgment of the  Tribunal  had  been  upset  by  this  Court  in<br \/>\nW.P.Nos.18692  and 18695 of 1999 dated 26.06.2 003 wherein this Court has held<br \/>\nthat the Tribunal could not be allowed to rewrite the selection rules and that<br \/>\nit was imperative for all the candidates to give the property details  at  the<br \/>\nnotified date only and not beyond the same.  Therefore, this Court has taken a<br \/>\nclear  view  that  the  candidates  cannot  be  allowed  to  supplement  their<br \/>\ninformation about the property after their selection and that it is imperative<br \/>\nfor the candidates to give all the property details prior to the selection and<br \/>\nmore particularly on the notified date.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">        4.  Learned counsel also pointed  out  that  in  this  case  even  the<br \/>\nselected  respondent  had  not  given  his  property  details  and he gave the<br \/>\nproperty details only on 22.5.1997 i.e., 17 days after the notified date.   In<br \/>\nthat  view,  obviously, the order of the Tribunal would be incorrect, because,<br \/>\naccording to the learned counsel, as  per  the  Communication  issued  by  the<br \/>\nGovernment  of  India,  vide  No.STB\/1-1\/95\/Rlgs  Dated  0  3.12.1997 and more<br \/>\nparticularly paragraph 8, it is a must that there has to  be  availability  of<br \/>\nminimum  three  eligible  candidates for holding interview and for going ahead<br \/>\nwith the process and if there are no minimum  candidates  for  being  selected<br \/>\nthen  the  concerned  authority  cannot proceed with the selection and have to<br \/>\neither obtain approval prior to the issuance of the appointment  order  or  at<br \/>\nleast  give  an  advertisement  and  invite applications from the open market.<br \/>\nThat obviously also has not been done.  It is also  relevant  to  extract  the<br \/>\nconcerned paragraph:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">&#8220;In  case  the  Employment  Exchange  fails to sponsor the minimum number of 3<br \/>\neligible candidates, an  open  advertisement  should  be  issued  calling  for<br \/>\nnominations.   Even here if the minimum number of 3 eligible candidates do not<br \/>\noffer their candidatures approval of the next higher authority to the proposed<br \/>\nappointment should be obtained before selection  is  made  from  amongst  such<br \/>\ncandidates.   In  case  the  Employment  Exchange  nominates  lesser number of<br \/>\neligible candidates than 3 and it becomes necessary to  call  for  application<br \/>\nfrom  the  open market also, the candidatures of the nominee of the Employment<br \/>\nExchange  should  also  be  considered  along  with   those   offering   their<br \/>\ncandidatures in response to the open advertisement&#8221;<br \/>\nLearned  counsel  fairly conceded that there was nothing on record supplied by<br \/>\nhim that minimum of three eligible  candidates  were  actually  available  for<br \/>\nselection.   In  that  view,  paragraph  8  of the communication issued by the<br \/>\nGovernment of India, which we have already quoted above, would apply, and  the<br \/>\norder of  the Tribunal would be clearly incorrect.  We, accordingly, set aside<br \/>\nthat order.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">        5.  We are told at the Bar that the termination order has already been<br \/>\nissued and another candidate has already been selected and  hence,  this  writ<br \/>\npetition has actually become infructuous.  However, since it was a question of<br \/>\ncareer of the second respondent, we have expressed our opinion.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        6.   Before  parting with the case, we would like to express that this<br \/>\nexercise of examining the  selection  process  should  not  be  taken  in  the<br \/>\nleisurely manner  as  it has been done.  Such exercises are not to be taken by<br \/>\nway of supplementing or fanning one&#8217;s egos.  They are to be taken for  keeping<br \/>\nthe selection process pure and unpolluted.  We have found in a number of cases<br \/>\nthat  such  exercise have been taken after the candidates have worked for more<br \/>\nthan one year.  We really do not understand as to why the candidates, who were<br \/>\nselected in the so called defective manner, are allowed to work for one or two<br \/>\nyears and then are sent home.  We hope that the  Central  Government  and  the<br \/>\nconcerned authority would take necessary steps to expedite the exercise, if it<br \/>\nso decides to take.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">        7.  We  allow the writ petition and make the rule absolute.  No costs.<br \/>\nConsequently, W.P.M.P.No.28388 of 1999 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>pv<\/p>\n<p>Copy to:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">1.  Union of India<br \/>\nrep.  by the Post Master General<br \/>\nCentral Region<br \/>\nTiruchirappalli  620 001.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">2.  Superintendent of Post Offices<br \/>\nKarur Postal Division<br \/>\nKarur  639 001.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Union Of India vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 June, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 30\/06\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice V.S.SIRPURKAR and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.THANIKACHALAM Writ Petition No. 19359 of 1999 and W.P.M.P.No. 28388 of 1999 1. Union of India rep. by the Post Master General [&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-268463","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>Union Of India vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 June, 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\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-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=\"2003-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-01T16:09:13+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 June, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-01T16:09:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1350,\"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\\\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-01T16:09:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 June, 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":"Union Of India vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 June, 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\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-01T16:09:13+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 June, 2003","datePublished":"2003-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-01T16:09:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003"},"wordCount":1350,"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\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003","name":"Union Of India vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-01T16:09:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-30-june-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 June, 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\/268463","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=268463"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268463\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268463"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268463"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268463"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}