{"id":44573,"date":"2004-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004"},"modified":"2015-05-21T02:19:34","modified_gmt":"2015-05-20T20:49:34","slug":"minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004","title":{"rendered":"Minor D. Ram vs Jawaharlal Institute Of Post … on 12 August, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Minor D. Ram vs Jawaharlal Institute Of Post … on 12 August, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 12\/08\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mrs. Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN\n\nW.P. No.9158 of 2004\nand W.P.Nos., 9740, 15652, 16067 and 17961 of 2004\n\nW.P. No.9158 of 2004\n\n1. Minor D. Ram\n2. Minor D. Shyam,\n   rep. by father and natural\n   Guardian Dr. D. Balasubramanian.        ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nJawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate\nMedical Education and Research,\nrep. by its Dean\n(Directorate General of Health Services)\nPondicherry-605 006.                               ..  Respondent\n\n\nW.P. No.9740 of 2004 :\n\nK. Sandirakasu                                             ..  Petitioner\n\n                vs.\n\n1. The Director General of Health\n   Services, New Delhi.\n\n2. The Director,\n   Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate\n   Medical Education and Research,\n   Pondicherry.\n\n3. The Government of Pondicherry,\n   rep. by Collector, Revenue Department,\n   Pondicherry.                                    ..  Respondents\n\n\n\nW.P. No.15652 of 2004 :\n\nS. Vijayashankar, Minor,\nrep. by father and natural guardian\nK. Sandirakasu.                                    ..  Petitioner\n\n                vs.\n\n1. The Director General of Health\n   Services, New Delhi.\n\n2. The Director,\n   Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate\n   Medical Education and Research,\n   Pondicherry.\n\n3. The Government of Pondicherry,\n   rep. by Collector, Revenue Department,\n   Pondicherry.\n\n4. Arul Prakash\n5. B. Priyavadhana\n6. Anjani Nandan Vaddi\n7. P. Shoba Rani\n8. B. Sahithya\n9. P. Shakthi\n10.P. Sathesh\n11.K. Elayavendhan\n12.B.S. Arasu                                              ..  Respondents\n\n\nW.P. No.16067 of 2004 :\n\nMinor B. Sahithya, rep. by\nher mother Dr. N. Chitra.                          ..  Petitioner\n\n                vs.\n\n1. Dean,\n   Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate\n   Medical Education and Research,\n   Pondicherry-605 006.\n\n2. The Registrar (Academic),\n   Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate\n   Medical Education and Research,\n   Pondicherry-605 006.                            ..  Respondents\n\nW.P. No.17961 of 2004 :\n\nP. Satheesh, Minor, rep. by\nhis father and natural guardian\nPonnarmeni.                                                ..  Petitioner\n\n                vs.\n\n1. The Director General of Health\n   Services, New Delhi.\n\n2. The Director,\n   Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate\n   Medical Education and Research,\n   Pondicherry.\n\n3. The Government of Pondicherry,\n   rep. by Collector, Revenue Department,\n   Pondicherry.\n\n4. Arul Prakash Pandian\n5. Priyavadhana\n6. Anjani Nandan Vaddi\n7. P. Shoba Rani\n8. B. Sahithya\n9. P. Shakthi                                              ..  Respondents\n\n        PRAYER :    Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution\nof India for the reliefs stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioners :  Mr.  V.  Ajay Kumar\n                (For petitioner in W.P.\n                No.15652 of 2004)\n                Mr.  R.  Krishnamurthy,\n                Senior Counsel for\n                Mr.  Vijay Narayan\n                (For petitioners in\n                W.P.  No.9158 of 2004)\n                Mr.  A.  Sasidharan and\n                Mr.  S.  Ashok Kumar\n                (in W.P.  No.16067 of 2004)\n\nFor Respondents :  Mr.  V.T.  Gopalan,\n                Additional Solicitor General\n                of India, assisted by\n                Mr.  M.T.  Arunan, A.C.G.S.C.\n\n                Mr.  Sasheedharan for Government\n                Pleader (Pondicherry) (For R-3)\n\n                Mr.  T.  Eswaradhas (For R-4 in\n                W.P.  No.15652 of 2004)\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                In  all  these  writ  petitions,  the Prospectus issued by the
\nJawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER),
\nPondicherry is being challenged with regard to Clause 3.1.  Clause 3 .1 of the
\nProspectus reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
                “3.1    Number of Seats :  Seventy-five  seats  are  available
\nfor admission during 2004 to the First Year M.B.B.S.  Course.  These seats are
\ndistributed as under :\n<\/p>\n
                (a)     Open General                            14<\/span>
\n                (b)     Open Scheduled Caste                    8<\/span>
\n                (c)     Open Scheduled Tribe                    4<\/span>
\n                (d)     Pondicherry General                     15<\/span>
\n                (e)     Pondicherry Scheduled Caste             5<\/span><\/p>\n
                (f)     Seats to be filled on the basis\n                        of Common All India Entrance\n                        Test by CBSE                            11<\/span>\n\n\n                (g)     Government of India nomination\n                        subject to fulfillment of basic\n                        requirements laid down, vide\n                        para 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3                   18<\/span>\n\n                        Total                                   75\"\n\nClause 3.5.1 reads thus :-\n<\/pre>\n
                “3.5.1  Definition  of Pondicherry Union Territory Residents :
\nThe 20 Seats reserved for Pondicherry General and Pondicherry Scheduled Castes
\nare open to applicants who are Pondicherry Residents  provided  he\/she  is  an
\nIndian National and satisfies either of the following two criteria:\n<\/p>\n
                (a)     Those candidates \/ their parents residing continuously
\nin  the  Union  Territory  of  Pondicherry for at least five years immediately
\npreceding the date of application.\n<\/p>\n
                (b)     Children   of   Central\/State   Government   Servants,
\nincluding  employees  of  Public  Sector  undertaking  under the Central\/State
\nGovernment posted and serving in the Union Territory  of  Pondicherry  for  at
\nleast  a  minimum  period of ONE year prior to the last date for submission of
\napplication.\n<\/p>\n
        NOTE :  Residence Certificate must be produced in the prescribed  form
\nat the time of admission.”\n<\/p>\n
        2.      In  Writ Petition Nos.15652 and 17961 of 2004, the petitioners
\nclaim that when it is settled law that a person migrating from one State\/Union
\nTerritory to  another  State\/Union  Territory  cannot  carry  the  benefit  of
\nreservation  he  has  in the State or the Territory of his origin to the place
\nwhere he has migrated, the definition is  unconstitutional.    The  definition<\/p>\n
denies  the  Pondicherry Scheduled Caste persons who have Pondicherry as their
\nplace of origin, their right.  The applicants  who  belong  to  the  Scheduled
\nCastes and who were born in Pondicherry are denied their right of reservation.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      Writ  Petition  No.9158  of  2004 has been filed on the ground
\nthat when out of the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes a special  concession
\nhas  been  made for Pondicherry Scheduled Castes, there is no justification to
\ndeny a similar concession to Pondicherry Scheduled Tribes.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      Writ Petition No.9740 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner
\nin W.P.  No.15652 of 2004 for quashing the Prospectus on the ground that it is
\nunconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      Writ Petition No.16067 of 2004 has been filed by a student who
\nis found her name in the students admitted  under  the  Pondicherry  Scheduled
\nCaste  category,  but is denied her seat because of interim orders obtained in
\nthis Court, directing the respondent to reserve one seat.\n<\/p>\n
        6.      W.P.  Nos.9740, 15652 and 17961 of 2004 :               In all
\nthese matters, the petitioners  submit  that  the  definition  of  Pondicherry
\nScheduled Castes is contrary to the law laid down in the judgments in 1990 (3)
\nS.C.C.  130 [Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs.  Dean, Seth G.S.  Medical College &
\nOthers<\/a>], and  1994  (5)  S.C.C.    244  [Action  Committee  on  Issue of Caste
\nCertificate  of  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  in  the  State  of
\nMaharashtra &  Another vs.  Union of India & Another] and is also violative of
\nArticles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India.  It was also submitted that
\nthe entitlement to  the  right  to  be  considered  for  admission  under  the
\nreservation quota should be based on the Presidential Order, and only a person
\nwho  is  resident  as  on  that date will be entitled to the benefits of being
\nconsidered as a Pondicherry Scheduled Caste.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      Reference is also made to the Ministry of Home Affairs  letter
\ndated  22.3.1977  with  regard  to the issue of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
\nTribes.  In this, it is specified that as per Articles  341  and  342  of  the
\nConstitution,  the  President issues orders notifying the Scheduled Castes and
\nScheduled Tribes in relation to a particular State  or  Union  Territory  from
\ntime to  time.    But,  the  people belonging to the same caste, but living in
\ndifferent States may  not  suffer  the  same  disability  and  therefore,  the
\nresidence  of  a  particular  person  in  a  particular locality has a special
\nsignificance.   This  was  stressed  in  order  to  give  guidelines  to   the
\nauthorities to  issue  certificates.  According to the learned counsel for the
\npetitioners, when this is the legal position, the Prospectus must  be  quashed
\nsince   the  requirement  of  residence  is  contrary  to  the  Constitutional
\nrequirements.  Apart from the two judgments referred  to  above,  the  learned
\ncounsel also referred  to  the  judgment  of  S.S.    Subramani,  J.   in W.P.
\nNos.9343 of 1997 Batch as well as the judgment of a  Division  Bench  in  Writ
\nAppeal Nos.247 and 818 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      As regards the petitioner in W.P.  No.9158 of 2004, who claims
\nthat  Pondicherry  Scheduled  Tribes should also be included, his case is that
\nwhen there is a specific provision made for Pondicherry Scheduled Castes,  the
\nPondicherry  Scheduled  Tribes who satisfy all the requirements – there can be
\nno dispute that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe, his father having graduated
\nfrom the JIPMER under the Scheduled Tribe quota and  also  their  having  been
\nresidents  of Pondicherry for more than five years – the omission to provide a
\nquota for Pondicherry Scheduled Tribes violates the  Constitutional  right  of
\nthe petitioner.   It was also pointed out that during the earlier years, there
\nwas such a reservation and that  has  been  removed,  which  has  resulted  in
\nConstitutional violation.\n<\/p>\n
        9.      The learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on
\nbehalf  of  the  respondents  would submit that this question had already been
\ndecided in 2000 Writ L.R.  496 [Puvvala Sujatha vs.  Union of India &  Others<\/a>]
\nby P.  Shanmugam,  J.  That case also dealt with the admission to M.B.B.S.  in
\nJIPMER and this very Prospectus was challenged therein.  The learned Judge  in
\nthat case  had  considered  the judgments reported in 1990 (3) S.C.C.  130 and
\n1994 (5) S.C.C.  244 cited supra and had dismissed the writ petitions, finding
\nno illegality  in  the  Prospectus.    Therefore,  according  to  the  learned
\nAdditional  Solicitor  General,  it  is  not  possible to resuscitate the same
\nquestion once again.  Reference was also made to  the  judgment  in  2001  (2)
\nM.L.J.  311  [Bharathi  vs.    The  Secretary to Government, Health and Family
\nWelfare Department, Chennai], in which the petitioner challenged the clause in
\nthe Prospectus of the Tamil Nadu  Professional  Courses  Medical  \/  Dental  \/
\nParamedical which insisted that students should have studied both Plus One and
\nPlus Two  classes  in  the  schools located in the Village Panchayat.  In that
\ncase, D.  Murugesan, J.  held that reservation is only by  way  of  concession
\nand the petitioner cannot challenge it as a matter of right similar to a right
\nwhich a  candidate  can claim under the rule of reservation.  According to the
\nlearned Judge, a concession such as this is granted by the  Government,  which
\ncan  also  withdraw  it  if it chooses to do so, whereas the reservation quota
\ncannot be withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
        10.     Learned Additional Solicitor General referred to the Scheduled
\nCastes and Scheduled Tribes  that  are  enumerated  as  per  the  Presidential
\nNotification in  each  State  or  Territory, as the case may be.  It was shown
\nfrom a Model Roster for Reservation that as regards  the  Union  Territory  of
\nPondicherry,  there  are  16  Scheduled Castes, but no Scheduled Tribes and 27
\nO.B.Cs.  The Note to this Model Roster  which  was  produced  shows  that  for
\nDelhi,  the Rosters which are prescribed for recruitment on an all India basis
\nis to be followed; for Goa, it will be the same as in the Union Territories of
\nDaman and Diu and therefore, when there are no Scheduled Tribes  notified  for
\nthe  Union  Territory of Pondicherry, the Prospectus did not allocate any seat
\nfor Pondicherry Scheduled Tribes.       The judgment in 1978 (II) M.L.J.    27
\n[Miss Mary  Varghese vs.  Principal, Jawaharlal Institute] was referred to, in
\nwhich the petitioner challenged the Constitutional validity of  the  selection
\nmade on the ground that the selection of students on the basis of nativity was
\nunconstitutional.   There,  under  the head ‘ Pondicherry General’, seats were
\nallotted also on the ground of  nativity.    The  Pondicherry  residents  were
\ndefined in that as :\n<\/p>\n
        (1)     Natives of Pondicherry by virtue of birth;\n        (2)     Candidates  having continuous residence for five years or more\nat the time of submission of application form;\n        (3)     The wards of Central Government employees including  employees\n<\/pre>\n
of  Public  Sector  undertakings  under Central Government posted in the Union
\nTerritory of Pondicherry irrespective of the period of their residence in  the
\nUnion Territory.\n<\/p>\n
        11.     In  the  present  Prospectus,  a  native of Pondicherry is not
\nincluded, but the definition of Pondicherry residents is somewhat  similar  to
\nCategory 2  and  Category  3  above.  In the above decision, the learned Judge
\nheld as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “One  can  well  understand  that  the  persons  having  residence  at
\nPondicherry  being  given  encouragement to get admission in the local Medical
\nCollege.  Equally, it may be  considered  reasonable  for  the  wards  of  the
\nCentral  Government employees working in Pondicherry to gain admission on that
\nscore.”\n<\/p>\n
It is now urged that the clause relating to residence and the clause  relating
\nto  wards of Central Government were held to be reasonable and therefore, even
\nin the year 1978, when a  challenge  was  made,  though  only  to  the  clause
\nrelating to  nativity,  the same was upheld.  The learned Additional Solicitor
\nGeneral would submit that  this  question  has  already  been  decided  by  P.
\nShanmugam, J.  The petitioners having participated in the examinations knowing
\nfully well the definition of Pondicherry Residents and knowing fully well that
\nno  quota  was reserved for Pondicherry Scheduled Tribes, cannot now challenge
\nthe Prospectus as held in the said judgment after having met with rejection.\n<\/p>\n
        12.     The judgment reported in 2000 Writ L.R.  496 cited  supra  can
\nbe  looked  into  first to see whether that judgment answers all the questions
\nraised by the petitioners herein.    The  basic  facts  are  almost  identical
\ninasmuch as  the  application  is  to  JIPMER  for  the  First Year M.  B.B.S.
\nCourse.  Even in that year, the number seats was 75 and the allotment of seats
\nwas made as in the instant case.  The prayer was also for quashing  of  Clause
\n3.5.1.  of  the  Prospectus.    In  that case, the petitioner had made a wrong
\nstatement and obtained a resident certificate on that basis.    But,  however,
\nthe  learned Judge had considered the legal position of the Circular issued by
\nthe Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated  22.3.1977,  which  is
\nreferred to in the above paragraph and it was held as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “Thus,  the  legal  position  as  per  the  circular  is that the term
\nresidence for the purpose of acquiring Scheduled Caste status is the place  of
\npermanent  abode  of  their  parents  at  the  time  of  notification  of  the
\nPresidential Order under which they claim to belong to  such  a  caste.    The
\nissue  of  Community  Certificate  is  not to be confused with the eligibility
\ncriteria laid down by the second respondent.”\n<\/p>\n
Further, it was observed as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “The second respondent being a Central  Government  institution,  they
\nhave reserved eight seats for all the Scheduled Caste candidates.  However, as
\na  concession, in the place of the location of the institution, five seats are
\nset apart for residents of Pondicherry Scheduled Castes.  This is  not  to  be
\ntreated as  a reservation under Article 16(4 ).  It is only a concession shown
\nand a source of selection for the colleges on the basis of the location.  Just
\nlike  Pondicherry  General,  where  15  seats  are  located  to  residents  of
\nPondicherry,  similarly,  five  seats are located to residents of Pondicherry.
\nThose residents have no  connection  with  the  Scheduled  Caste  Presidential
\nNotification.   Further, it cannot be in any way, restricting the right of the
\nScheduled Castes in the reservation of allotment to the eight  seats  reserved
\nfor Scheduled Castes.\n<\/p>\n
        …..\n<\/p>\n
        Thus,  the  allotment of seats on the basis of residential requirement
\nto Scheduled Caste candidate is not a reservation  under  Article  15(4  )  or
\n16(4) of the Constitution of India.     It  is  a  concession  or  a source of
\nselection decided by the Central Government on the basis of  the  location  of
\nthe institution within Pondicherry State.  ”\n<\/p>\n
The learned Judge also  referred  to  A.I.R.  1971 S.C.  1762 [D.N.  Chanchala
\nvs.  State of Mysore<\/a>], wherein it was observed by the Supreme Court,
\n        “The Government is entitled to lay down sources from  which  selection
\nwould be  made.    A provision laying down such sources is, strictly speaking,
\nnot a reservation.  It is not  a  reservation  as  understood  by  Article  15
\nagainst which objection can be taken on the ground that it is excessive.”\n<\/p>\n
This  is  applicable to educational institutions run by the Central Government
\nand not the State Government.  Therefore, the ratio laid down in the judgments
\nin 1990 (3) S.C.C.  130 and 1994 (5) S.C.C.  544 will not apply to  the  facts
\nof  the  present  case since they related to admissions in institutions run by
\nthe State Government.  The submissions made by the counsel have  already  been
\ndecided by P.  Shanmugam, J.  and I am not persuaded to differ from that view.\n<\/p>\n
        13.     Further,   as  far  as  Central  Government  institutions  are
\nconcerned, no distinction is made between Scheduled Caste candidates who  have
\nthe  origin  in  a  particular  State  or  Union Territory and Scheduled Caste
\ncandidates who  have  migrated.    This  clarification  is  obtained  in   the
\nGovernment  of  India,  Department  of  Telecom  Letter  No.1-13\/92-SCT  dated
\n18\/31.8.1992.  As per the clarification obtained from the Ministry of  Welfare
\nand  Ministry  of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Training, there is
\nno distinction between origin and migration cases as far as Central Government
\ninstitutions are concerned.  They are  applicable  only  to  State  Government
\nservices and   State  Government  educational  institutions.    Applying  this
\ncriteria and in view of the fact that the conditions in Clause  3.5.1  of  the
\nProspectus were  met,  respondents 4 to 12 have been admitted.  The percentage
\nof reservation for Scheduled Caste candidates in the respondent Institution is
\n15% and out of the 75 seats, 20 seats are reserved on  residential  basis  and
\nfor  the  remaining  55,  if  15% reservation is applied, it comes to 8.25 and
\ntherefore, 8 seats are given under the Open  Scheduled  Caste  category.    As
\nregards the  20  seats, 15% reservation will actually come to three seats.  On
\nthe other hand,  five  seats  are  given  for  Pondicherry  Scheduled  Castes.
\nTherefore, the  quota  for  Scheduled  Castes has not been diminished.  Out of
\nthat quota, as a concession, the Pondicherry Scheduled  Caste  candidates,  as
\ndefined in  the  Prospectus,  have  been given five seats.  The petitioner has
\nparticipated in the examination quite aware of the reservation for Pondicherry
\nScheduled Castes.  Having participated  in  the  examinations,  he  now  finds
\nhimself  out  of  the  running since other students who also applied under the
\nPondicherry Scheduled Caste category have acquired more marks than him; so, he
\nhas laid  the  challenge.    There  is  no  violation  of  the  Constitutional
\nrequirement of reservation.\n<\/p>\n
        14.     Further, from the counter affidavits filed by the respondents,
\nit  is  seen  that the fourth respondent belongs to Pallar Community, which is
\nlisted as No.9 in the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964.
\nAs regards the  fifth  respondent,  the  petitioner  has  no  grievance  since
\naccording to him, the fifth respondent is a Pondicherry origin Scheduled Caste
\ncandidate.   As  regards the seventh respondent, it is seen that he belongs to
\nAdi Dravida Community, which is No.2 in the Schedule and  they  are  Scheduled
\nCaste  candidates  of  Pondicherry and they are also residents of Pondicherry.
\nThe same is the case with the eighth respondent, who filed W.P.   No.16067  of
\n2004.   Her  Admission  Card  which  has been filed in the typed set of papers
\nshows her as a Pondicherry Scheduled Caste candidate and therefore, she claims
\nthat her entitlement to one of the five seats which has also been  granted  by
\nthe  College cannot be thwarted by the petitioners in these two writ petitions
\non the ground that the definition of Pondicherry Scheduled Castes is  contrary
\nto the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
        15.     The  same issue had come up for consideration, of course, with
\nregard to employment, in 2004 (1) S.C.C.  530 (Chandigarh  Administration  vs.
\nSurinder  Kumar)<\/a>  with regard to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, wherein it
\nwas held,
\n        “In the present case we have noticed  that  the  Government  of  India
\ninstructions  contained in the letter dated 26-8-1986 specifically permit that
\na recognised Scheduled Caste\/Scheduled Tribe  of  any  other  State  or  Union
\nTerritory  would  be  entitled  to  the  benefits  and facilities provided for
\nScs\/STs in the services in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.  This letter  is
\nspecifically  addressed  by  the  Government  of  India to the Home Secretary,
\nChandigarh Administration and deals with employment in the Union Territory  of
\nChandigarh.   Therefore,  there  is  no  reason  to  ignore  the  instructions
\ncontained in the said letter.”\n<\/p>\n
The decisions in 1990 (3) S.C.C.  130 (cited supra) and 1994 (5) S.C.  C.  244
\n(cited supra) were also referred to and the Supreme Court held,
\n        “The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel  for  the  appellant
\nonly  decide the constitutional aspect of the government policy on the subject
\nat a given time while leaving the policy decision as to what benefits  are  to
\nbe  conferred  on persons belonging to reserved categories with the Government
\nof India.  In the present case  the  Government  of  India  has  conveyed  its
\ndecision  on  the  point  vide  its  letter dated 26-8-1986 which has not been
\nmodified.  Therefore, the instructions contained in the said letter which were
\nadmittedly being followed till 7-9-1999, in our view, continue to be in force.
\nThere is no reasonable basis to discontinue the said decision with effect from
\n7-9-99 9.  No reason or basis has been disclosed for  discontinuing  the  same
\nwith effect from the said date.”\n<\/p>\n
It is seen that in this case the Supreme Court had accepted the decision taken
\nby the Government to permit in the letter dated 26-08-1980 referred above.\n<\/p>\n
        16.     But  this decision came up again for consideration in 2004 (3)
\nS.C.C.  132 (S.  Pushpa vs.  Sivachanmugavelu)<\/a> in a case that arose out  of  a
\ndecision  of  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  at  Madras with regard to the
\nmatter of reservation in the  Union  Territory  of  Pondicherry,  wherein  the
\nSupreme Court held as follows :\n<\/p>\n
                “Some persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes in relation to
\nthe  State of Tamil Nadu migrated to the Union Territory of Pondicherry and on
\nthe basis of certain notifications issued by the Government of India, as  also
\nthe  Union  Territory  of  Pondicherry  the  benefit  of  reservation was made
\navailable to them and such persons thus got employment in the Union  Territory
\nof Pondicherry.    The  Central  Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Madras, set
\naside such appointments\/promotions with a direction to review the selection in
\nregard to the reserved quota excluding the migrated Scheduled Caste candidates
\nfrom consideration.”\n<\/p>\n
Relying on 1990 (3) SCC 130(cited supra) and 1994 (5) SCC  244  (cited  supra)
\nthe Central Administrative Tribunal and this Court held,
\n                “he  would  not carry with him the status of a Scheduled Caste
\ncandidate to the State to which he has migrated, nor can he claim such benefit
\nin that State as available to him  as  a  Scheduled  Caste  candidate  in  his
\nState.”\n<\/p>\n
The attention of the Supreme Court was referred to certain G.O.  and letters.\n<\/p>\n
        “GO  issued  by  the  Government  of  India  dated 4-2-1974 by which a
\nclarification was conveyed to the Lt.  Governor of Pondicherry that  Scheduled
\nCaste\/Tribe  candidates from outside the Union Territory of Pondicherry should
\nalso  be  considered  for  appointment  to  posts   reserved   for   Scheduled
\nCastes\/Tribes in  Pondicherry.    Our attention has also been drawn to another
\nnotification dated 6-1-1993 issued by the Government of Pondicherry  referring
\nto,  amongst  others,  the  government  order  dated  4-2-1974  issued  by the
\nGovernment of India clarifying that since Pondicherry is  a  Union  Territory,
\nall  orders  regarding  reservation  for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes in
\nrespect of posts\/services under  the  Central  Government  are  applicable  to
\nposts\/services under   the   Pondicherry   Administration  also.    Therefore,
\nScheduled Caste\/ Scheduled Tribe candidates  from  outside  Pondicherry  would
\nalso be eligible for vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
\nin the Union Territory Administration.”\n<\/p>\n
It was also contended that,
\n                “in  view of the provisions contained under Article 239 of the
\nConstitution of India.  The Union Territory of  Pondicherry  itself  has  also
\nissued a circular on the same lines.”\n<\/p>\n
Finally, the Supreme Court held,
\n                “It  is true that some distinction has been sought to be drawn
\nby the respondents between  the  decision  rendered  by  us  in  the  case  of
\nChandigarh  Admn.(Arising  out of SLP(C)No.20366 of 2002 From the Judgment and
\nOrder dated 16-08-2002 of the Bombay High Court in SA No.248 of 2002) and  the
\ncases  in  hand,  also on the basis that the points raised here were not under
\nconsideration in the case of Chandigarh Admn.  we, however feel that  in  case
\nthe  impugned  decisions  of  the  High  Court  and the Central Administrative
\nTribunal are upheld, in support of which some  arguable  points  having  prima
\nfacie  merit  have  been  raised, it may sound some conflict with the decision
\nrendered by us in the case of Chandigarh Admn.\n<\/p>\n
                Therefore, in our view, it would  be  appropriate  that  these
\ncases  are placed before a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges,so as to consider the
\nbroader issues raised and  lay  down  the  law  considering  all  aspects  and
\nprovisions of the Constitution and other laws on the subject.”\n<\/p>\n
So  the law declared by the Supreme Court as on date with regard to this issue
\nis stated in Chandigarh Admn.  Until a different decision is given, the  stand
\ntaken  by respondents in this regard, though this is with regard to admission,
\nis in accordance with the law declared by  the  Supreme  Court  in  Chandigarh
\nAdmn.  case.\n<\/p>\n
        For  all  the  reasons stated above, the writ petitions are dismissed.
\nIn view of the above, W.P.  No.16067 of 2004 is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
        17.     W.P.  No.9158 of 2004 :\n<\/p>\n
        The writ petitioners belong to the Scheduled Tribe community.   It  is
\ntheir  case  that  when  Pondicherry  Scheduled Castes have been allotted five
\nseats, there is no reason why the Pondicherry Scheduled Tribes should  not  be
\nawarded any  seat.    The  petitioners  claim  that  they  are  entitled to be
\nconsidered for selection.\n<\/p>\n
        18.     It is seen that there are no Scheduled  Tribes  in  the  Union
\nTerritory  of  Pondicherry  and  therefore, no reservation is made Pondicherry
\nScheduled Tribes.  The petitioners only claim that they should  be  considered
\nunder the Pondicherry Scheduled Tribes category and that is their prayer.  The
\npetitioners  seek  a  declaration  that  the  Prospectus  should be held to be
\nunconstitutional and invalid insofar as it fails to  make  a  reservation  for
\nPondicherry Scheduled  Tribe candidates.  Any reservation made on the basis of
\nresidence, be it Pondicherry Scheduled Castes or Pondicherry Scheduled Tribes,
\nis not a reservation under Articles 15(4) of 16(4) of the Constitution.    The
\nreservation made on the residential basis is, as has already been seen, only a
\nconcession  and  therefore,  the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right
\nthat reservation should be made for Pondicherry Scheduled Tribes.  There is  a
\nreservation made for Scheduled Tribes under the Open Category and whether they
\nare  Pondicherry  residents  or migrants or otherwise, they will be considered
\nonly under this category.  Therefore, the prayer that is  sought  for  by  the
\nwrit petitioners in this writ petition cannot be granted and the writ petition
\nis dismissed.    It  is  seen  that  Interim  orders passed by this Court have
\nprevented some of the students who have got admission  under  the  Pondicherry
\nScheduled Caste  quota,  which  has  been upheld, from attending classes.  The
\nstudents shall be permitted to join the courses  forthwith  according  to  the
\nlist finalised by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        19.     However,  we  must  point  out an error in the manner in which
\nseats have been allotted by the respondent Institution applying  the  rule  of
\nreservation.   Paragraph  3 of the counter filed by the respondent Institution
\nreads as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “I humbly submit that when the MBBS seats  for  JIPMER  was  increased
\nfrom 65 to 75, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi has sent the
\nrevised allocation as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        Open General                                            ..      14\n        Open Scheduled Caste                            ..      8\n        Open Scheduled Tribe                            ..      4\n        Pondicherry General                                     ..      15\n        Pondicherry Scheduled Caste                     ..      5\n        All India Entrance Examination by CBSE  ..      11\n        Govt.  of India nominations                     ..      18\n\n<\/pre>\n
        Since this Institute is under the administrative control of Government
\nof  India,  Ministry  of  Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi, the distribution
\norders issued by the Ministry of Health & Family  Welfare  is  as  per  Letter
\ndated 03.10.1991 (Annexure-I).\n<\/p>\n
        The  total reservation for Open Scheduled Tribe comes to six seats out
\nof 75 seats (i.e.  7.5\/100 x 75 = 5.62 rounded to 6 seats).  Out of 6 seats, 4
\nseats already given to Open Scheduled Tribe, the balance 2 seats is  added  to
\nPondicherry  Scheduled  Caste  since  there  is  no  promulgation  orders  for
\nPondicherry Scheduled Tribe.  After excluding 20 seats reserved  for  regional
\nreservation for Pondicherry Union Territory, the remaining seats available are\n<\/p>\n
55.   The  reservation for Open Scheduled Tribe for 55 seats is 7.5\/100 x 55 =
\n4.12 seats.  So there is no shortage for Open Scheduled  Tribe.    As  far  as
\nPondicherry region is concerned there is no promulgation order for Pondicherry
\nScheduled  Tribe,  the reservation is as follows 7.5\/100 x 20 = 1.5 is rounded
\nto 2 seats.  These 2 seats are added to Pondicherry Scheduled Caste i.e.  3  +
\n2 =  5  seats.    Even  for Open Scheduled Caste, the reservation is 15% of 55
\nseats is 8.25, therefore, 8 seats are given to Open Scheduled Caste.\n<\/p>\n
        Further, it is informed, out of total 75 seats, 18 seats are earmarked
\nfor Government of India nominations.  Only 57 seats  are  filled  by  Entrance
\nExamination  basis including 11 seats filled by All India Pre-Medical Entrance
\nExamination conducted by C.B.S.E.  Further, out  of  18  seats  earmarked  for
\nGovernment  of  India  nominations,  every  year  more  than 5 Scheduled Tribe
\ncandidates are nominated by Government of India.  During the last 5 years, the
\nScheduled Tribe candidates nominated by Govt.  of India are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
                1999-2000               -       7\n                2000-2001               -       6\n                2001-2002               -       6\n                2002-2003               -       7\n                2003-2004               -       7\n\n<\/pre>\n
        Hence, even if it is  calculated  for  75  seats,  the  Constitutional
\nreservations  comes to 6 seats but actual admission is 11 seats in every year,
\nwhich is more than the  Constitutional  reservations.    Moreover,  the  Union
\nTerritory  of  Pondicherry  has  not  made  any  reservation  for  Pondicherry
\nScheduled Tribe.  Hence, this Institute has also  not  reserved\/earmarked  any
\nseats for  Pondicherry  Scheduled  Tribe.   There is no promulgation order for
\nPondicherry Scheduled Tribe.”\n<\/p>\n
It appears that by this calculation, the Scheduled Tribe category has lost two
\nseats.  The respondents should remember that the Scheduled  Tribe  reservation
\nquota cannot  be  reduced.    But,  that is really irrelevant as the fact that
\nScheduled Tribe candidates are nominated every year will not  alter  the  fact
\nthat as per the present allotment, the Scheduled Tribe category gets less than
\nwhat it is entitled to.\n<\/p>\n
        20.   However,  the fact that the allotment has not been done properly
\nwill not come to the aid of the petitioners, since their claim is  only  under
\nthe Pondicherry Scheduled Tribe category.  No allotment has been made for this
\ncategory and  cannot  be  made for reasons stated above.  Therefore, this writ
\npetition is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        21.     W.P.M.P.  No.21973 of 2004 is filed by one S.    Vijayashankar
\nand W.P.M.P.    No.25319  of  2004  has  been  filed  by  the  Association for
\nProtection & Welfare of Pondicherry U.T.  Origin Scheduled  Caste  seeking  to
\nimplead themselves  as  second respondents.  According to them, they should be
\nheard in this regard, since  allotment  to  Pondicherry  Schedule  Tribe  will
\naffect their right.  All that the impleading party can be heard to say is that
\nthe  Scheduled  Caste  quota  cannot  be  reduced  and  that the definition is
\nunconstitutional.  We have already seen that in the allotment, the SC has been
\ngiven two more than what it is entitled to and as regards the definition  that
\nhave no  bearing  on  the issue to be decided in this case.  Hence, both these
\nW.P.M.Ps.  are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  However, there will be no order as to costs.   Consequently,  the
\nconnected W.P.M.Ps.  are closed.\n<\/p>\n
ab<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nWebsite :  Yes<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate
\nMedical Education and Research,
\nrep.  by its Dean, Pondicherry-605 006.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Director General of Health
\nServices, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Collector,
\nRevenue Department,
\nGovernment of Pondicherry,
\nPondicherry.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Minor D. Ram vs Jawaharlal Institute Of Post … on 12 August, 2004 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 12\/08\/2004 Coram The Honourable Mrs. Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN W.P. No.9158 of 2004 and W.P.Nos., 9740, 15652, 16067 and 17961 of 2004 W.P. No.9158 of 2004 1. Minor D. Ram 2. […]<\/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-44573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMinor D. Ram vs Jawaharlal Institute Of Post ... on 12 August, 2004 - 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\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Minor D. Ram vs Jawaharlal Institute Of Post ... on 12 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-20T20:49:34+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Minor D. Ram vs Jawaharlal Institute Of Post … on 12 August, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-20T20:49:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004\"},\"wordCount\":4524,\"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\\\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004\",\"name\":\"Minor D. Ram vs Jawaharlal Institute Of Post ... on 12 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-20T20:49:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Minor D. Ram vs Jawaharlal Institute Of Post … on 12 August, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Minor D. Ram vs Jawaharlal Institute Of Post ... on 12 August, 2004 - 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\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Minor D. Ram vs Jawaharlal Institute Of Post ... on 12 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-20T20:49:34+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Minor D. Ram vs Jawaharlal Institute Of Post … on 12 August, 2004","datePublished":"2004-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-20T20:49:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004"},"wordCount":4524,"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\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004","name":"Minor D. Ram vs Jawaharlal Institute Of Post ... on 12 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-20T20:49:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-d-ram-vs-jawaharlal-institute-of-post-on-12-august-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Minor D. Ram vs Jawaharlal Institute Of Post … on 12 August, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44573","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=44573"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44573\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}