{"id":37839,"date":"2002-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002"},"modified":"2016-06-05T22:28:25","modified_gmt":"2016-06-05T16:58:25","slug":"m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002","title":{"rendered":"M. Udayabhanu vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 26 July, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M. Udayabhanu vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 26 July, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 26\/07\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN\n\nW.P. No. 13454 of 1995\nand\nW.M.P. No.21568 of 1995\n\nM. Udayabhanu                                          ... Petitioner\n\nVersus\n\n1. The Government of Tamilnadu\n   rep. by its Secretary\n   P&AR Department\n   Fort St. George\n   Madras - 600 009\n\n2. The Secretary\n   Finance (BPE)Department\n   Fort St. George\n   Madras - 600 009\n\n3. The District Employment Officer\n   Salem District\n   Salem - 5                                    ... Respondents\n\n        Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for  a\nWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :       Mr.  N.  Paul Vasanthakumar\n\nFor Respondents:       Mrs.  D.  Malarvizhi, Govt.Advocate\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
        The dispute in this writ petition is whether the couples married prior
\nto  24.09.1986  are  entitled  to  get  provision  of  priority  of employment
\nassistance.  The petitioner belonged to Forward Community.  She married one M.
\nKumar on 10-09-1986 who belongs to Arunthathiar Community which is a scheduled
\nCaste and she is allegedly entitled to get the benefits as per  G.O.Ms.    No.
\n188  \u2013 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Committee dated 28-12-1976 and the
\nsame was issued in supersession of the orders issued in the Government  Orders
\ncited therein.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      In  and  by  the  said  G.O., the Government has directed that
\norder of priorities in regard to provision of  employment  assistance  through
\nemployment  exchange  to  disabled  ex-servicemen  and  for the members of the
\nfamily of defence service personnel killed in action.   The  said  G.O.    was
\namended by G.O.  Ms.  229, P&AR dated 07-04-1988 thereby the said priority was
\nextended to destitute widows.  Again, the said G.O.  was amended extending the
\nsaid  priority  to inter-caste married couple (where one of the spouses belong
\nto SC\/ST) with effect from 24-09-198 6.  Another G.O.  Ms.    No.    53  dated
\n12-12-1988  was  issued  by  the  Government  of Tamil Nadu directing that the
\ninter-caste married couples should register  their  names  in  the  employment
\nexchanges  within  two years along with the community certificate issued by an
\nOfficer not below the rank of Tahsildar and the marriage document  has  to  be
\nregistered in  the  office  of the Sub-registrar of Marriages.  In and by G.O.
\nMs.  No.  910, P&AR dated  24-12-1992,  the  Govern  ment  has  issued  orders
\nstating  that (i) priority concession in sponsoring inter-caste married couple
\nshould be available to the couples who get married after issuance of the  G.O.
\nMs.  939 (ii) the time limit of two years shall be reckoned only from the date
\nof  marriage  of  the inter-caste married couple and (iii) Inter-caste married
\ncouple should register their names in the employment exchange within two years
\nto avail the priority concession of sponsoring the  names  by  the  employment
\nexchanges.   The  two years period for the purpose of registering the names in
\nthe employment exchange was dispensed with.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      G.O.  Ms.  No.  257 dated 23-03-1994 (finance Department)  was
\nissued  on the recommendations made by the Director of Employment and Training
\nrequesting that the priority accorded to the inter-caste married couple  while
\nsponsoring  the  candidates  by  employment  exchange  to  State Public Sector
\nUndertakings \/ Boards to be made available to those whose inter-caste marriage
\ntook place on or after 24-09-1986.  The petitioner has challenged the cut  off
\ni.e., 24-09-1986 fixed in the said G.O.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      Mr.   Paul  Vasanthakumar,  learned  counsel appearing for the
\npetitioner argued that the intention of the State Government for  issuance  of
\nthe said G.O.   was to promote and encourage inter-caste marriages.  While so,
\nrestricting the benefit  only  to  those  couples  got  married  on  or  after
\n24-09-1986 is  unsustainable.   It is further canvassed by the learned counsel
\nthat inter-caste married couple is a clause by itself and there cannot be  any
\ndistinction on  the  basis  of the date of marriage.  The learned counsel also
\nrelied on AIR 1983 SC 130 (D.S.  Nakara and Others Vs.  Union of India).    It
\nis also further argued by the learned counsel that the District Schedule Caste
\nWelfare  Officer,  Salem  and  the  Tahsildar, Athur has issued certificate in
\nfavour of the petitioner; that the  marriage  was  also  registered  with  the
\nRegistrar  of  Marriages  in  the  year  1988  which  was  produced  by her on
\n05-06-1999 .  The petitioner  has  also  registered  her  name  with  the  3rd
\nrespondent on   14-03-1988.      The   3rd  respondent  herein  has  issued  a
\ncommunication dated 01-02-1995 cancelling the priority given to the petitioner
\non the ground that the marriage was held prior to the cut off date and  prayed
\nfor quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      Now, we look into the relevant G.O.s<\/p>\n
        G.O.Ms.  No.    939,  Personnel  and  Administrative Reforms Committee
\ndated 24-09-1986<\/p>\n
        “..2.  The following amendment issued to G.O.  Ms.  No.  188 Personnel
\nand Administrative Reforms (Personnel.  P) dated 28.12.1976.\n<\/p>\n
Amendment<\/p>\n
(1)     In the list of priority categories  annexed  to  the  said  Government
\nOrder  for  the  existing  item  (1)  under  group  II  the following shall be
\nsubstituted:-\n<\/p>\n
        Intercaste married couple
\n        (where one of the spouses belongs to SC\/ST<\/p>\n
(2)     The existing item No.  (i) and (ii) and (iii) under Group  II  of  the
\nsaid annexure shall be numbered as (ii) (iii) and (iv).”\n<\/p>\n
        6.      Based on the said G.O.  the petitioner has registered her name
\nwith the  employment  exchange,  the  third  respondent  on  14-03-1988.   The
\npetitioner also produced necessary certificate of registration of her marriage
\non 05-06-1989.  The Government has later issued the  G.O.    Ms.    No.    410
\nPersonnel and Administrative Reforms Committee dated 24-12-1 992 which runs as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
“GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
\nABSTRACT<\/p>\n
Public  Services  \u2013  Intercaste married couple \u2013 Giving priority in sponsoring
\ncandidates through Employment Exchanges \u2013 Prescription of a time limits of two
\nyears from the date of marriages for registration with Employment Exchange for
\navailing priority concession \u2013 Dispensed with \u2013 Orders \u2013 issued.\n<\/p>\n
————————————————
\nPERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL-R) DEPARTMENT<\/p>\n
G.O.Ms.No.410                           Dated 24.12.1992
\nRead:-\n<\/p>\n
1.      G.O.  Ms.   No.    939,  Personnel  and   Administrative   Reforms   (
\nPersonnel-R) Department, dated 24.09.1986.\n<\/p>\n
2.      G.O.  Ms.    No.53,  Personnel and Administrative Reforms(Personnel-R)
\nDepartment dated 12.02.1988.\n<\/p>\n
3.      G.O.  Ms.   No.    685,  Personnel  and   Administrative   Reforms   (
\nPersonnel-R)Department dated 26.12.1989.\n<\/p>\n
4.      From  the  Director  of  Employment  and Training, Madras-5 letter No.
\nPa.Pa.1\/80108\/88, dated 12.10.1989.\n<\/p>\n
ORDER:-\n<\/p>\n
        In the Government order first read above, priority has  been  accorded
\nto the intercaste married couple where one of the spouses belongs to Scheduled
\nCaste\/Scheduled Tribe for sponsoring through Employment Exchange.\n<\/p>\n
2.      Further,  with a view to identifying intercaste married couple for the
\npurpose  of  priority  consideration  in  the  matter  of  sponsoring  by  the
\nEmployment  Exchanges,  it  was  ordered  in  the Government Order second read
\nabove, that the intercaste married couples should register their names in  the
\nEmployment Exchanges within the time limit of two years along with (1)  the
\nCommunity  Certificate from an Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar and (2)
\nthe marriage document registered in the office of the Registrar of Marriages.\n<\/p>\n
3.      In the Government Order  third  read  above,  orders  were  issued  as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
i)      The  priority  concession  in sponsoring the intercaste married couple
\nshould be available to those couples who got married after issue of the orders
\nin G.O.  Ms.No.   939,  Personnel  and  Administrative  Reforms  (Personnel-R)
\nDepartment, dated 24.09.1986:…..”\n<\/p>\n
        G.O.  Ms.  No.  257 dated 23-03-1994 runs as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
\nABSTRACT
\nState  Public  Sector Undertakings \u2013 Recruitment through Employment Exchange \u2013
\nPriority to Inter-caste married couple \u2013 Cut off date Orders \u2013 Issued\n<\/p>\n
————————————————<\/p>\n
\nFINANCE (BPE) DEPARTMENT\nG.O.  Ms.  No.  257                     Dated :  23.03.1994\nRead:\n\n<\/pre>\n
1) G.O.Ms.  No.  429 Finance (BPE) Department, dated 19.05.1987\n<\/p>\n
2) G.O.  Ms.  No.203, Finance (BPE), dated 20.03.1992\n<\/p>\n
3) From the Director of Employment & Training,  Lr.    No.    Pa.Pa.1\/82355\/93
\ndated 30-11-1993.\n<\/p>\n
—–\n<\/p>\n
ORDER:\n<\/p>\n
        “In the  G.O.    first read above, Government have prescribed order of
\npriorities to be followed by all State Public  Sector  undertakings  including
\nState  Transport  Undertakings  and Statutory Boards while making recruityment
\nthrough Employment Exchanges.  In the G.O.  second read above Government  have
\nissued  an amendment to the list of priority categories prescribed in the G.O.
\nfirst read above to include  intercaste  married  couple  (where  one  of  the
\nspouses belong to Scheduled Caste\/ Scheduled Tribes).\n<\/p>\n
        2.      Director  of  Employment and Training in his letter third read
\nabove has suggested that this priority accorded to inter-caste married couples
\nin G.O.  first read above amended in G.O.  second read above be made available
\nto those whose inter-caste marriage took place on or after 24.09.1986 for  the
\npurpose of uniformity as the same is being followed for public service.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      The  Government after careful consideration accept the request
\nof the Director of Employment and Training and  accordingly  direct  that  the
\npriority accorded  in  G.O.    first  and second read above to the inter-caste
\nmarried couples while sponsoring candidates by Employment  Exchange  to  State
\nPublic Sector Undertakings\/Boards be made available to those whose inter-caste
\nmarriage took place on or after 24.09.1986.\n<\/p>\n
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)
\n                                                S.  MALATHI
\nSPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT”\n<\/p>\n
        7.      It is evident  from the said G.O.  and the impugned G.O.  that
\nthe Government has originally given priority to the disabled exservicemen  and
\nfor the members of the family of defence service personnel killed in action by
\nG.O.  Ms.  188 P&AR  dated  28-12-1976.    Later,  G.O.  Ms.  2 29, P&AR dated
\n07-04-1988 was issued extending the said priority  to  the  destitute  widows.
\nAgain, by G.O.Ms.    No.    939 dated 24-09-1986, the priority was extended to
\ninter-caste married couples.  It is evident  from  G.O.Ms.    No.    939  that
\nDirector  of  Employment  and  Training  has  suggested  that  priority may be
\naccorded to inter-caste married couples (where one of the  spouses  belong  to
\nSC\/ST) for the purpose of nomination through employment exchange and that they
\nmay be  assigned  priority.    The Government, after careful consideration has
\nassigned priority to the said category also.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      It is the case of the petitioner that the said  amendment  was
\neffected in G.O.Ms.    No.    188 dated 28-12-1976 as such it should be deemed
\nthat the priority is with retrospective effect from the date in which the said
\nG.O.  was issued.  I am unable to accept the said contention of the petitioner
\nas the Government of Tamil Nadu, for the first time extended  the  benefit  to
\nthe  said  category  of  inter-caste  married couple (where one of the spouses
\nbelonged to SC\/ST) by issuing G.O.Ms.  No.939 dated 24-09-1986  and  the  said
\nG.O.  was not given retrospective effect as such it shall come into force from
\nthe date of issuance of the same.\n<\/p>\n
        9.      The Government has issued  G.O.    Ms.    No.  685, P&AR dated
\n26-12-1989 reiterating the cut off date as 24-09-1986 in terms of G.O.Ms.  No.
\n9 39.  Again, by G.O.  Ms.  No.257, the cut off date was confirmed.   The  new
\ncategory  of  inter-caste  married couple was introduced for the first time by
\nG.O.Ms.  No.  939  dated  24-09-1986  with  prospective  effect  as  such  the
\npetitioner is  not  entitled  to  the benefit of the said G.O.  Therefore, the
\njudgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in AIR 1983  SC
\n130 cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case.\n<\/p>\n
        10.     The  3rd respondent has assigned priority to the petitioner by
\nmisconstruing the G.O.Ms.  No.   939,  which  was  rightly  cancelled  by  the
\nimpugned order  dated  01-02-1995.   The other argument of the counsel for the
\npetitioner that before passing the impugned order, the 3rd respondent has  not
\ngiven  any  notice  or  opportunity is also unsustainable because the original
\norder of assigning priority was also contrary to the G.O.s, which was  rightly
\ncancelled.\n<\/p>\n
        11.     Considering the circumstance of the case that the petitioner’s
\ninter-caste marriage took place just a couple of days prior to the issuance of
\nthe  G.O.,  I  feel  that  the  Government  can  sympathetically  consider the
\npetitioner’s name as a special case on submitting an application by her within
\na period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.   It  is  also
\nmade clear that this order shall not be cited as a precedent in future.\n<\/p>\n
        With the  above  observations,  this  writ  petition is dismissed.  No
\ncosts.  Connected WMP is closed.\n<\/p>\n
26-07-2002
\nrsh
\nIndex :  Yes
\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary to Government
\nGovernment of Tamilnadu
\nP&AR Department
\nFort St.  George
\nMadras – 600 009<\/p>\n
2.  The Secretary
\nFinance (BPE)Department
\nFort St.  George
\nMadras – 600 009<\/p>\n
3.  The District Employment Officer
\nSalem District
\nSalem – 5<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M. Udayabhanu vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 26 July, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26\/07\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN W.P. No. 13454 of 1995 and W.M.P. No.21568 of 1995 M. Udayabhanu … Petitioner Versus 1. The Government of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary […]<\/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-37839","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM. Udayabhanu vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 26 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Udayabhanu vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 26 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-05T16:58:25+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\\\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Udayabhanu vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 26 July, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-05T16:58:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1945,\"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\\\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002\",\"name\":\"M. Udayabhanu vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 26 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-05T16:58:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Udayabhanu vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 26 July, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"M. Udayabhanu vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 26 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Udayabhanu vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 26 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-05T16:58:25+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\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Udayabhanu vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 26 July, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-05T16:58:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002"},"wordCount":1945,"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\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002","name":"M. Udayabhanu vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 26 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-05T16:58:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-udayabhanu-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-26-july-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Udayabhanu vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 26 July, 2002"}]},{"@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\/37839","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=37839"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37839\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}