{"id":31651,"date":"2008-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008"},"modified":"2017-03-12T20:50:44","modified_gmt":"2017-03-12T15:20:44","slug":"correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2960 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nCorrespondent, St. Michael's T.T.I.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nV.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/04\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha &amp; Lokeshwar Singh Panta\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nREPORTABLE<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2960               OF 2008<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No.19520 of 2006)<\/p>\n<p>S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tAppellant is an aided institution.  It is aided by the State of Tamil<br \/>\nNadu. Terms and conditions of its teachers are governed by Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nRecognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 framed under Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tRespondent was appointed in the said school on or about 11.7.1977.<br \/>\nHe was a graduate in Master of Education as also in Master of Science.  He<br \/>\nwas having the requisite qualification for recruitment to the said post.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe State, however, issued a Government Order dated 16.9.1994<br \/>\nraising the qualification of a teacher, inter alia, stating :<br \/>\n&#8220;XV Staff Requirements:\n<\/p>\n<p>Teaching Staff<br \/>\nQualifications etc.<\/p>\n<p>(b)Subject Teacher<br \/>\nA Post Graduate Degree in the<br \/>\nrelevant subject and M.Ed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Degree with teaching experience<br \/>\npreferably in recognized schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>There shall be four subject<br \/>\nteachers to handle Tamil,<br \/>\nEnglish, Mathematics, Science<br \/>\nand Social Science.  The<br \/>\nHeadmaster shall handle one of<br \/>\nthe five subjects.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn the plea that the respondent did not hold the requisite<br \/>\nqualifications in terms of the said GOMs dated 16.9.1994, his services were<br \/>\nterminated by the appellant by an order dated 6.1.1995 with effect from<br \/>\n22.12.1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tRespondent filed a writ petition before the High Court questioning the<br \/>\nsaid order of termination, inter alia, stating that the said purported G.O.Ms.<br \/>\ndated 16.9.1994 could not have been given a retrospective effect.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tA learned Single Judge of the said Court, by an order dated 5.9.2005<br \/>\nquashed the said order of termination opining that once the appointment was<br \/>\nmade in a lawful manner and the teachers were found to have the requisite<br \/>\nqualifications as prescribed at the time of such appointment, a revision in<br \/>\nqualification so as to be applied retrospectively and affect the career of an<br \/>\nappointee would not be permissible.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appellant institution was held to be amenable to writ jurisdiction.  It<br \/>\nwas also found that the State had not issued any direction to remove the<br \/>\nrespondent from service.  On the said findings, it was directed :<br \/>\n&#8220;Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to<br \/>\nadopt an erroneous interpretation and to deny<br \/>\nemployment to the petitioner who has been serving<br \/>\nthe school from 1977.  It is pertinent to note that in<br \/>\nW.P.M.P. No.9628 of 1995, the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge has issued interim orders on 21.4.1995 itself<br \/>\nthat no appointment shall be made for a period of<br \/>\ntwo weeks if the third respondent had not<br \/>\nappointed any one in the place of the Petitioner.<br \/>\nThere is nothing on record to show that the said<br \/>\ninterim order had been vacated subsequently,<br \/>\nthough the respondent, in their counter affidavit,<br \/>\nhas stated that a qualified teacher had been<br \/>\nappointed on 23.12.1994.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tAn intra court appeal was preferred thereagainst before the Division<br \/>\nBench of the said Court.  The question which was raised before the said<br \/>\nBench was limited to the question of payment of the back wages to the<br \/>\nrespondent and as to whether the State is liable therefor or the appellant<br \/>\ninstitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>The contention of the parties were noted by the Division Bench as<br \/>\nunder :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;According to the appellant, namely the Teacher&#8217;s<br \/>\nTraining Institute, the teachers services were<br \/>\nterminated only because the Government<br \/>\nrepeatedly wrote letters that the Government Order<br \/>\nhas to be strictly adhered to and that it is only at<br \/>\ntheir instructions that the teacher was terminated.<br \/>\nThe learned Special Government Pleader would<br \/>\nsubmit that while it is true that the Government<br \/>\ninsisted on all Institutes to strictly comply with the<br \/>\nconditions stipulated in the Government Order, no<br \/>\ninstructions had been specifically issued in this<br \/>\ncase to terminate the services of the teacher, nor<br \/>\nhad any instructions been issued to comply with<br \/>\nthe Government Order retrospectively in respect of<br \/>\nany person who has already been in service.<br \/>\nAccording to them, since they are bearing the<br \/>\nexpenditure arising out of the appointment of the<br \/>\nnew teacher, they cannot be saddled with the<br \/>\nburden twice.  It is also the case of the<br \/>\nGovernment that it was never the Institute&#8217;s case<br \/>\nthat any specific instructions were issued by the<br \/>\nGovernment to terminate the services of the<br \/>\nteacher; and that if the Institute had taken a<br \/>\ndecision which is not supportable in law, then it is<br \/>\nthe Institute which has to bear the financial burden<br \/>\nand not the State.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhile refraining itself from interfering with the order of the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge, the Division Bench observed :<br \/>\n&#8220;However, it is open to the Institute to apply to the<br \/>\nGovernment, if so advised, for reimbursement of<br \/>\nthe wages paid to the teacher in compliance of the<br \/>\norders of the learned Single Judge and thereafter, it<br \/>\nis for the Government to take a decision in this<br \/>\nregard.  No costs.  Consequently, W.A.M.P.<br \/>\nNo.4015 of 2005 is closed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tAppellant is, thus, before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tMr. Romy Chacko, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellant, would submit that the petitioner institution being not a State<br \/>\nwithin the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the writ<br \/>\npetition was not maintainable.  It was furthermore contended that in any<br \/>\nevent, as the order of termination of the respondent was not mala fide, the<br \/>\nHigh Court should have held that she was not entitled to back wages and no<br \/>\nlegal right vested in her in obtaining the relief of reinstatement.  Reliance in<br \/>\nthis behalf has been placed on <a href=\"\/doc\/1690380\/\">Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi<\/a><br \/>\n[(2004) 3 SCC 172].\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tMr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondent, on the other hand, would urge that the appellant herein having<br \/>\nnot questioned the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to interfere with<br \/>\nthe matter, the contention that the writ petition was not maintainable should<br \/>\nnot be allowed to be raised before this Court for the first time.  It was<br \/>\nfurthermore urged that keeping in view the respective contentions made<br \/>\nbefore the Division Bench, it is evident that the question of the respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nhaving any alternate employment did not and could not arise.  Strong<br \/>\nreliance in this behalf has been placed on <a href=\"\/doc\/1758944\/\">Jasbir Singh v. Punjab &amp; Sind<br \/>\nBank &amp; Ors.<\/a> [(2007) 1 SCC 566]; <a href=\"\/doc\/885748\/\">Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd.<\/a> [(2007<br \/>\n(1) SC 533]; and <a href=\"\/doc\/1413421\/\">Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University &amp; Ors. v.<br \/>\nShrikant<\/a> [(2006) 11 SCC 42].\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tIt is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the appellant possessed the<br \/>\nrequisite qualification at the time of his entry in the service.  The educational<br \/>\nqualification for a teacher was sought to be raised by the State much later,<br \/>\nnamely, in the year 1994.  Respondent, indisputably, was appointed on a<br \/>\npermanent basis.  She was a regular teacher.  If she was a regular teacher,<br \/>\nthe question of termination of her services relying on or on the basis of the<br \/>\npurported GOMs dated 16.9.1994 did not arise as the same had not been<br \/>\ngiven retrospective effect.  The State never said that in terms of the said<br \/>\nGOMs, the services of the employees who had validly been appointed,<br \/>\nshould be terminated.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tThe contention of the appellant that there was some apprehension that<br \/>\nrecognition, as granted by the State to the said institution, may be withdrawn<br \/>\nshould have been taken up by it with the State at the first instance.  It having<br \/>\nfailed to do so, in our opinion, no legal infirmity can be found in the<br \/>\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tReliance placed by the learned counsel on <a href=\"\/doc\/1690380\/\">Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v.<br \/>\nManorama Sirsi<\/a> [(2004) 3 SCC 142] is not apposite.  The courts exercise<br \/>\ndifferent jurisdictions while entertaining applications filed under different<br \/>\nstatutes.  While entertaining a suit, the court&#8217;s jurisdiction would be<br \/>\ngoverned by the Specific Relief Act, 1963.  Although principles laid down<br \/>\ntherein may be found to be applicable, the said provisions by themselves<br \/>\nneed not be strictly applied by the High Court while exercising its<br \/>\njurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.<br \/>\nThe question that the appellant was amenable to writ jurisdiction is<br \/>\nnot in dispute.  If it was amenable to writ jurisdiction, the High Court was<br \/>\nnot only entitled to set aside an order of termination of service on an<br \/>\ninterpretation that neither the GOMs had any retrospective application nor,<br \/>\nin any event, had any application to the case of appointment of the<br \/>\nrespondent but also to grant back wages.  On the said premise, the High<br \/>\nCourt had the jurisdiction to set aside the order of termination.  Once the<br \/>\norder of termination was set aside, the logical corollary therefor should<br \/>\nordinarily ensue, subject of course to denial of the benefit either in totality or<br \/>\nin part.\n<\/p>\n<p>It was in the aforementioned situation, the question of grant of back<br \/>\nwages would arise.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1758944\/\">In Jasbir Singh v. Punjab &amp; Sind Bank &amp; Ors.<\/a> [(2007) 1 SCC 566],<br \/>\nthis Court directed reinstatement in service with back wages, continuity of<br \/>\nservice and other consequential benefits.  {See also <a href=\"\/doc\/885748\/\">Gangadhar Pillai v.<br \/>\nSiemens Ltd.<\/a> [(2007) 1 SCC 533]}.\n<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"\/doc\/1628125\/\">In General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh<\/a> [(2005) 5<br \/>\nSCC 591], this Court stated :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case<br \/>\nwhere the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that<br \/>\nthe termination of service was in violation of<br \/>\nSection 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should<br \/>\nbe awarded.  A host of factors like the manner and<br \/>\nmethod of selection and appointment i.e. whether<br \/>\nafter proper advertisement of the vacancy or<br \/>\ninviting applications from the employment<br \/>\nexchange, nature of appointment, namely, whether<br \/>\nad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or<br \/>\npermanent in character, any special qualification<br \/>\nrequired for the job and the like should be weighed<br \/>\nand balanced in taking a decision regarding award<br \/>\nof back wages.  One of the important factors,<br \/>\nwhich has to be taken into consideration is the<br \/>\nlength of service, which the workman had rendered<br \/>\nwith the employer.  If the workman has rendered a<br \/>\nconsiderable period of service and his service are<br \/>\nwrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or<br \/>\npartial back wages keeping in view the fact that at<br \/>\nhis age and the qualification possessed by him he<br \/>\nmay not be in a position to get another<br \/>\nemployment.  However, where the total length of<br \/>\nservice rendered by a workman is very small, the<br \/>\naward of back wages for the complete period i.e.<br \/>\nfrom the date of termination till the date of the<br \/>\naward, which our experience shows is often quite<br \/>\nlarge, would be wholly inappropriate.  Another<br \/>\nimportant factor, which requires to be taken into<br \/>\nconsideration, is the nature of employment.  A<br \/>\nregular service of permanent character cannot be<br \/>\ncompared to short or intermittent daily-wage<br \/>\nemployment though it may be for 240 days in a<br \/>\ncalendar year.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\tThe said decision as also the decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/1690380\/\">Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v.<br \/>\nManorama Sirsi<\/a> [(2004) 3 SCC 172] have been rendered in a different fact<br \/>\nsituation, namely, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 11-A of<br \/>\nthe Industrial Disputes Act.  The question as to what would be the relevant<br \/>\nfactors for the industrial court to grant the said relief need not be the same<br \/>\nfor the writ court.  For grant of back wages, this Court has laid down several<br \/>\nprinciples therefor.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\tHowever, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the<br \/>\nopinion that the interest of justice will be subserved if the quantum of back<br \/>\nwages is confined to Rs.75% for the total period the respondent remained<br \/>\nout of service.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.\tAppeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent.  This order is being<br \/>\npassed keeping in view the fact that the respondent has already been<br \/>\nreinstated in service.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall<br \/>\nbe no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2008 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2960 of 2008 PETITIONER: Correspondent, St. Michael&#8217;s T.T.I. RESPONDENT: V.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/04\/2008 BENCH: S.B. Sinha &amp; Lokeshwar Singh Panta [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31651","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2008 - 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\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-12T15:20:44+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-12T15:20:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1937,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-12T15:20:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2008 - 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\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-12T15:20:44+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-12T15:20:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008"},"wordCount":1937,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008","name":"Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-12T15:20:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/correspondent-st-michael-vs-v-n-karpaga-mary-ors-on-24-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary &amp; Ors on 24 April, 2008"}]},{"@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\/31651","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=31651"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31651\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31651"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31651"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31651"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}