{"id":43297,"date":"2003-11-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003"},"modified":"2015-02-08T14:03:25","modified_gmt":"2015-02-08T08:33:25","slug":"n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003","title":{"rendered":"N. Arumugam vs The University Of Grants on 6 November, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">N. Arumugam vs The University Of Grants on 6 November, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 06\/11\/2003  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA         \n\nWRIT PETITION.NO.2348 OF 2002 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2349 OF 2002          \n\n\nN. Arumugam            ..  Petitioner in both WPs\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The University of Grants\n   Commission, \n   rep. by its Secretary\n   Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg \n   New Delhi 110 002.\n\n2. The Registrar,\n   The Ghandigram Rural Institute\n   (Deemed University), Ghandhigram,\n   Dindigul District.           ..  Respondents in WP.2348\/02\n\n\n\n1. The Registrar,\n   The Ghandigram Rural Institute\n   (Deemed University), Ghandhigram,\n   Dindigul District.\n\n2. The University of Grants\n     Commission,\n   rep. by its Secretary\n   Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg \n   New Delhi 110 002.   ..  Respondents in WP.2349\/02\n\n\n        Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the\nissuance of Writ of Certiorari and Certiorarified  Mandamus  respectively,  as\nstated therein.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Ms.K.  Suguna\n\nFor Respondents        :  Mr.J.  Madanagopal Rao,\n                SCGSC\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n<p>                Both the writ petitions being inter-linked, heard together and<br \/>\nshall be governed by this common decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   In  W.P.No.2348  of  2002,  the petitioner has prayed for<br \/>\nissuing writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated  5.10.2000  issued  in<br \/>\nRef.No.E3-1\/94  (PS)by  the University Grants Commission, the first respondent<br \/>\nand further for quashing the order issued by the Gandhigram  Rural  Institute,<br \/>\ndated 7.1.2002 in Ref.No.435\/Est.2\/2001-2002\/4301.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   Prayer  in  the connected W.P.No.2349 of 2002 is to quash<br \/>\nthe  order  passed  by  Gandhigram  Rural   Institute,   dated   2.1.2002   in<br \/>\nRef.No.435\/Est.2\/2001-2002\/4231.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  For convenience, the University Grants Commission shall be<br \/>\nreferred  to  as the first respondent and the Gandhigram Rural Institute shall<br \/>\nbe referred to as the second respondent hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  The second respondent was initially having the status of a<br \/>\ncollege.  At that stage, the petitioner was appointed as Librarian in the  pay<br \/>\nscale  which  was similar to that of a Lecturer in Tamil Nadu State Government<br \/>\npattern college.  In course of time, the second  respondent  become  a  deemed<br \/>\nUniversity with  effect  from  3.8.1976.   The second respondent receives 100%<br \/>\ngrant from the first respondent.  From January  1986,  the  second  respondent<br \/>\nfollowed the  UGC staff pattern.  As per the staff pattern, at that stage, the<br \/>\npost of Librarian carried the  pay  scale  of  Rs.4500-150-7300  at  par  with<br \/>\nProfessor  cadre,  the  post  of  Deputy  Librarian  carried  the pay scale of<br \/>\nRs.3700-125-5700 at par with Reader cadre and the post of Assistant  Librarian<br \/>\ncarried  the pay scale of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 at pat with Lecturer cadre.<br \/>\nIn course of time, the first respondent has  sanctioned  the  post  of  Deputy<br \/>\nLibrarian in  the  pay  scale equivalent to that of a Reader cadre.  While the<br \/>\nmatter stood thus, Advertisement dated 25.6.1989 was issued for filling up the<br \/>\npost of Deputy Librarian.  The petitioner claims that since he was holding the<br \/>\npost of Librarian and the scale of pay for the Deputy Librarian was higher, he<br \/>\nhad  raised  objection,  but  on  the  oral  instructions  of  the  then  Vice<br \/>\nChancellor,  he  had  applied for the said post with the understanding that he<br \/>\nwould continue to work with the designation of  Librarian.    Thereafter,  the<br \/>\npetitioner was selected and was allowed the pay scale of Deputy Librarian, but<br \/>\ncontinued  to  hold  the  designation  of  the  Librarian  on the basis of the<br \/>\nproceedings of the Syndicate.   Subsequently,  he  made  a  representation  to<br \/>\nrevise his  pay  scale at par with the pay scale applicable to Librarian.  The<br \/>\nsecond respondent,  at  that  stage,  issued  an  order  indicating  that  the<br \/>\npetitioner should  be designated as Deputy Librarian.  Against such order, the<br \/>\npetitioner filed W.P.No.4694 of 1995.  The said writ petition was  allowed  on<br \/>\nthe  ground that re-designation of the petitioner as Deputy Librarian had been<br \/>\ndone without following the principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>        While the matter stood thus, the first respondent by  letter  in  Ref.<br \/>\nNo.F3-1\/94(PS)  dated 5.10.2000 issued instructions indicating that the age of<br \/>\nsuperannuation of the Deputy Librarian is 60 years.   On  the  basis  of  such<br \/>\nletter  issued  by  the  first  respondent,  the  second  respondent under the<br \/>\nimpugned letter dated 7.1.2002 in  Ref.No.435\/Est.2\/200  1-2002\/4301  informed<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  that he has to retire from service on attaining the age of 60<br \/>\nwith effect from 28.8.2002.  As already indicated,  W.P.No.2348  of  2002  has<br \/>\nbeen filed  for quashing these two directions.  Impugned order dated 2.1.2002,<br \/>\nwhich has been challenged in the connected W.P.No.2349  of  2002,  is  to  the<br \/>\neffect  that the petitioner should use the designation of Deputy Librarian and<br \/>\nnot the designation of the Librarian.  This is mainly on the footing that  the<br \/>\npost  of  Librarian,  as  per  the  first respondent, carries the pay scale of<br \/>\nProfessor and such post has not been sanctioned.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   Separate  counter  affidavits  have  been  filed  by  the<br \/>\nrespondents 1 and 2 justifying the action taken by them.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  The following questions crop up for the decision :-<br \/>\n        (1) Whether the petitioner has the right to be designated as Librarian<br \/>\nand,  if  so,  whether  he would be entitled to the emoluments applicable to a<br \/>\nLibrarian, which is similar to that of a Professor ?\n<\/p>\n<p>        (2) Even assuming that the  petitioner  would  not  be  designated  as<br \/>\nLibrarian  and would continue to be designated as Deputy Librarian, whether he<br \/>\nshould be allowed to continue in service till the age of 62 ?\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  So far as the first question is concerned, it is  apparent<br \/>\nthat  initially  the petitioner had been appointed as Librarian in a college<br \/>\nand the scale of pay payable was that of a Lecturer.  When the college  became<br \/>\na  deemed university, the petitioner continued in the said scale of pay and in<br \/>\ncourse of time, UGC staff pattern  was  adopted.    There  were  three  posts,<br \/>\nnamely,  Librarian  in the pay scale of Professor, Deputy Librarian in the pay<br \/>\nscale of Reader and Assistant Librarian in the pay  scale  of  Lecturer.    In<br \/>\n1989,  a  post  of  Deputy  Librarian was sanctioned for the second respondent<br \/>\nwhich had become a deemed university by then.  Even though the petitioner  was<br \/>\napparently  designated  as  Librarian, it is obvious that he was getting the<br \/>\nscale of pay applicable to a Lecturer and since  the  scale  of  pay  for  the<br \/>\napproved  post  of Deputy Librarian was higher, being at par with the scale of<br \/>\npay applicable to the post of Reader.    The  petitioner  after  some  initial<br \/>\nhesitation  applied for the post and got selected and he was given the benefit<br \/>\nof scale of pay  applicable  to  Deputy  Librarian.    On  the  basis  of  the<br \/>\nrepresentation  made  by  the  petitioner,  he  continued  to be designated as<br \/>\nLibrarian, even though in reality he was Deputy  Librarian  being  allowed  to<br \/>\ndraw scale  of  pay  applicable  to Deputy Librarian equivalent to Reader.  In<br \/>\nother words, from that stage onwards, he was the Deputy Librarian even  though<br \/>\neuphemistically designated as the Librarian.  This position had continued, but<br \/>\nwhen  the  petitioner  demanded  that  he  should  be  paid the pay scale of a<br \/>\nProfessor, the second respondent thought it  proper  to  re-designate  him  as<br \/>\nDeputy Librarian, which was successfully challenged in the earlier W.P.No.4694<br \/>\nof 1995.   In the said decision, however, it was made clear that the order had<br \/>\nbeen set aside merely because principles  of  natural  justice  had  not  been<br \/>\nfollowed  and it was left open to the second respondent to consider the matter<br \/>\nafresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner.    Thereafter,  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent  after  giving  opportunity  to  the  petitioner,  passed  an order<br \/>\nindicating that the petitioner should be re-designated as Deputy Librarian.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  On going through the materials on record and after hearing<br \/>\nthe counsels appearing for the parties,  I  do  not  find  any  illegality  or<br \/>\nirregularity in   such  order  passed  by  the  second  respondent.    If  the<br \/>\npetitioners stand that he should be considered as  a  Librarian  is  to  be<br \/>\naccepted,  there is no logic in the petitioner applying for the post of Deputy<br \/>\nLibrarian.  It is evident  that  the  University  has  permitted  to  use  the<br \/>\ndesignation as Librarian as a special concession to the petitioners sentiment<br \/>\nand not  as a recognition of his right.  It has to be remembered that the post<br \/>\nof Librarian in the pay scale of Professor is yet to  be  sanctioned  for  the<br \/>\ndeemed  university  by  the UGC, the first respondent, and therefore, it would<br \/>\nnot be proper to uphold the contention of the petitioner to designate him as a<br \/>\nfull-fledged Librarian.  The contentions raised in WP.No.2348 of  2002  cannot<br \/>\nbe accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  The question raised in the connected writ petition stands<br \/>\non a  different  albeit  comparatively  surer  footing.    To  appreciate  the<br \/>\nquestions involved, it is necessary at this stage to refer to Notification  of<br \/>\nthe University   Grants   Commission   dated  24.12.1998.    This  relates  to<br \/>\nnotification on Revision of pay scales, minimum qualifications for appointment<br \/>\nof teachers in Universities &amp; Colleges and measures  for  the  maintenance  of<br \/>\nstandards.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.    16.0.0   of   the  aforesaid  notification  relates  to<br \/>\nsuperannuation and  re-employment  of  teachers.    16.1.0  and  16.2.0  being<br \/>\nrelevant are extracted hereunder in extenso :-\n<\/p>\n<p>         16.0.0 SUPERANNUATION AND RE-EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHERS             <\/p>\n<p>        16.1.0 Teachers  will retire at the age of 62.  However, it is open to<br \/>\na University or a college to re-employ a superannuated  teacher  according  to<br \/>\nthe existing guidelines framed by the UGC upto the age of 65 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>        16.2.0 Age of retirement of Registrars, Librarians, Physical Education<br \/>\npersonnel,  Controllers  of  Examinations,  Finance  Officers  and  such other<br \/>\nuniversity employees who are being treated at par with the teachers and  whose<br \/>\nage of  superannuation  was  60  years,  would  be 62 years.  No re-employment<br \/>\nfacility is recommended  for  the  Registrars,  Librarians  and  Directors  of<br \/>\nPhysical Education.<\/p>\n<p>                12.    Subsequently,  a  letter  was  written  by  the  Deputy<br \/>\nSecretary on behalf of the UGC to the second respondent,  which  is  extracted<br \/>\nhereunder :-\n<\/p>\n<p>         .  .    .    The Commission in its meeting held on 16th August, 2000<br \/>\ndiscussed the issue of age  of  retirement  of  Assistant  Registrars,  Deputy<\/p>\n<p>Registrars,  Assistant  Librarians,  Deputy  Librarians, Assistant Director of<br \/>\nPhysical Education &amp; Deputy Director of Physical Education in  the  University<br \/>\nsystem and declared as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>          The  Commission  decided  that  the  age of retirement of Assistant<br \/>\nRegistrar, Deputy Registrar, Assistant Director of Physical Education,  Deputy<br \/>\nDirector of Physical Education, Assistant Librarian and Deputy Librarian shall<br \/>\nbe 60  years.    It  was  further  decided  that if any institution has so far<br \/>\nextended the superannuation age to 62 years in respect of any of the aforesaid<br \/>\ncategory of employees  it must with immediate effect be brought  down  to  60<br \/>\nyears.   It  was  further  decided  that  with  immediate  effect from now the<br \/>\naforesaid category of employees shall superannuate at the age of 60 years.<\/p>\n<p>                13.  It is the contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid<br \/>\nimpugned letter issued on behalf of UGC is contrary to the notification  dated<br \/>\n24.12.1998  as well as contrary to the letter received from HRD Ministry under<br \/>\nletter No.F-49\/98-U.I(Pt.) dated 16.11.1999.  Under the latter letter it seems<br \/>\nHRD Ministry has indicated that library staff shall be treated on par with the<br \/>\nteaching staff in respect of age of superannuation.  Even  though  the  letter<br \/>\nrecei  ved  from  the  Ministry  may  not  be  conclusive in such matters, the<br \/>\nnotification issued by the UGC in 1998 being a statutory notification  has  to<br \/>\nbe implemented.    Paragraph 16.2.0, which has already been extracted, relates<br \/>\nspecifically  to  the  retirement  of  the  Registrars,  Librarians,  Physical<br \/>\neducation personnel,  Controllers of Examinations and Finance Officers.  There<br \/>\nis no doubt that such officials would retire at the age of 62 in view  of  the<br \/>\nspecific provision made in paragraph 16.2.0.  The contention of the petitioner<br \/>\nis  to  the  effect  that  the  expression Librarian should also include the<br \/>\nDeputy Librarian and Assistant Librarian.  Such a contention prima  facie  has<br \/>\ngot some  merits.   However, it is unnecessary to deal with this aspect, as in<br \/>\nmy  opinion,  other  phrase  dealing  with  other  university   employees   is<br \/>\napplicable.   It  has  to  be  appreciated  that  the  expression  such other<br \/>\nuniversity employees who are being treated at par with the teachers and  whose<br \/>\nage of superannuation was 60 years would be 62 years would also be applicable<br \/>\nto the  Deputy  Librarian  as  per  paragraph  16.2.0.  Even assuming that the<br \/>\npetitioner  being  a  Deputy  Librarian  may  not  answer  the  description<br \/>\nLibrarian,  obviously  he  comes  under  the  category  of  other  university<br \/>\nemployees.  Therefore, it has to be examined whether the petitioner, being  an<br \/>\nother university employee, can be treated on par with the teachers.\n<\/p>\n<p>                14.   It  is  the  case  of  the  petitioner that he was being<br \/>\ntreated as a member of the teaching staff and was taking classes and was  also<br \/>\nthe Chairman of Board of Studies.  In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of<br \/>\nthe second respondent it has been asserted albeit grudgingly as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>          (i)  The Library Science course are run from the year 1993-94 only.<br \/>\n3 batches of course were conducted.  The course was staggered for a period  of<br \/>\nthree  years,  and  the course was restarted from the academic year 1999-2000.<br \/>\nFrom the above fact it can be seen that the  petitioner  has  handled  classes<br \/>\nonly for a period of 5 years in his total service and not all the years in his<br \/>\nservice period.<\/p>\n<p>                15.  It is not disputed that the pay scale of Deputy Librarian<br \/>\nis at  par  with  the pay scale of Reader.  Since the pay scales were same and<br \/>\nthe petitioner was also taking classes, it is obvious that the petitioner  was<br \/>\nbeing  treated  at  par  with  the  teachers not only so far as the salary was<br \/>\nconcerned but also in respect of an important duty.  It is of course true that<br \/>\nin the counter affidavit the second respondent has indicated that  unlike  the<br \/>\nteachers, the person holding the post of non-academic staff, namely, Assistant<br \/>\nDirector  of  Physical Education, Assistant Registrar, Assistant Librarian did<br \/>\nnot have the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme.  In the  present  case,  we<br \/>\nare  not  concerned  with  the  question as to whether these persons are to be<br \/>\ntreated as teachers for  all  the  purpose.    The  only  question  is  to  be<br \/>\nconsidered is the age of superannuation.\n<\/p>\n<p>                16.   From  the  UGC  notification  it  is  apparent  that the<br \/>\nintention of the UGC is to allow the persons involved in teaching to retire at<br \/>\nthe age of 62.  Since under  the  second  respondent,  a  course  relating  to<br \/>\nLibrary Science has been introduced and the petitioner had been entrusted with<br \/>\nthe  job  of  teaching,  it  would  be improper to hold that his job was not a<br \/>\nsimilar to that of a teaching staff.\n<\/p>\n<p>                17.  For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to hold that the<br \/>\nage of superannuation of the petitioner should be taken as 62 years.    It  is<br \/>\nhowever  made  clear  that  where  the Deputy Librarian of a University is not<br \/>\nassigned the job of teaching, such Deputy Librarian would not be  entitled  to<br \/>\ncontinue till the age of 62 and only where the Deputy Librarian is involved in<br \/>\nteaching, the  retirem  ent age of 62 will be applicable.  In such view of the<br \/>\nmatter, the petitioner should be allowed to continue as the  Deputy  Librarian<br \/>\ntill he attains the age of 62 .\n<\/p>\n<p>                18.   The next question is as to whether the petitioner should<br \/>\nbe paid the salary for the period which he was not actually worked and retired<br \/>\nat the age of 60.\n<\/p>\n<p>                19.  The petitioner has approached the High Court immediately,<br \/>\nbut no stay was granted.  The second respondent is an educational institution.<br \/>\nIt is of course true that  money  has  to  be  paid  by  the  UGC,  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent.  Even though the petitioner was not at fault, it may not be proper<br \/>\nto give him the entire financial benefit as he had not actually worked.\n<\/p>\n<p>                20.   Having  regard  to  all  these  aspects,  I  am  of  the<br \/>\nconsidered opinion that for the period from discontinuance of  the  petitioner<br \/>\nat  the  age  of  attaining  60  till  reinstatement  pursuant  to the present<br \/>\ndirection, the petitioner should be paid 50% of all  the  emoluments  payable,<br \/>\nbut the petitioner would be deemed to be in service throughout and such period<br \/>\nshall be  counted towards service for all other purpose.  The petitioner shall<br \/>\nbe paid full amount from the date of reinstatement till his retirement at  the<br \/>\nage of  62.  The direction regarding reinstatement should be complied within a<br \/>\nperiod of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.  The emoluments for<br \/>\nthe past period should be paid within three months.\n<\/p>\n<p>                21.   In  the  result,  W.P.No.2348  of  2002  is rejected and<br \/>\nW.P.No.2349 of 2002 is allowed in part.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nIndex :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>dpk <\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The University of Grants<br \/>\nCommission,<br \/>\nrep.  by its Secretary<br \/>\nBahadur Shah Zafar Marg<br \/>\nNew Delhi 110 002.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Registrar,<br \/>\nThe Ghandigram Rural Institute<br \/>\n(Deemed University), Ghandhigram,<br \/>\nDindigul District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court N. Arumugam vs The University Of Grants on 6 November, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06\/11\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA WRIT PETITION.NO.2348 OF 2002 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2349 OF 2002 N. Arumugam .. Petitioner in both WPs -Vs- 1. The University of Grants [&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-43297","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>N. Arumugam vs The University Of Grants on 6 November, 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\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N. Arumugam vs The University Of Grants on 6 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-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=\"2003-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-08T08:33:25+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N. Arumugam vs The University Of Grants on 6 November, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-08T08:33:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2562,\"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\\\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003\",\"name\":\"N. Arumugam vs The University Of Grants on 6 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-08T08:33:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N. Arumugam vs The University Of Grants on 6 November, 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":"N. Arumugam vs The University Of Grants on 6 November, 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\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N. Arumugam vs The University Of Grants on 6 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-08T08:33:25+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N. Arumugam vs The University Of Grants on 6 November, 2003","datePublished":"2003-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-08T08:33:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003"},"wordCount":2562,"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\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003","name":"N. Arumugam vs The University Of Grants on 6 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-08T08:33:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-arumugam-vs-the-university-of-grants-on-6-november-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N. Arumugam vs The University Of Grants on 6 November, 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\/43297","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=43297"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43297\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}