{"id":50083,"date":"1999-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999"},"modified":"2016-09-07T02:24:39","modified_gmt":"2016-09-06T20:54:39","slug":"v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999","title":{"rendered":"V.C. Perumal vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V.C. Perumal vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Mrs. Sujata Manohar, R.C. Lahoti<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4168 of 1994\n\nPETITIONER:\nV.C. PERUMAL\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/01\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nMRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR &amp; R.C. LAHOTI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>1999 (1) SCR 160<\/p>\n<p>The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant was directly recruited to the post of District Superin-<br \/>\ntendent of Police in the competitive examination conducted by the Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Public Service Commission in the year 1965. He joined service on<br \/>\n5.7.1965. At the relevant time he was officiating as Superintendent of<br \/>\nPolice which is a post in the Indian Police Service. He was so officiating<br \/>\nfrom 26.6.1975 to 5.5.1978. The substantive post held by him at the<br \/>\nmaterial time was of Additional Superintendent of Police which is in the<br \/>\nState Police Service.\n<\/p>\n<p>The dispute in the present case relates to the year in which the name of<br \/>\nthe appellant should have been included in the select list for appoint-ment<br \/>\nas Superintendent of Police. The name of the appellant was included, for<br \/>\nthe first time, in the select list prepared for the year 1978. According to<br \/>\nthe appellant, he should have been included in the select list which was<br \/>\nprepared in the year 1977.\n<\/p>\n<p>Under Regulation 5 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regula-tions, 1955<br \/>\nit is provided as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Regulation 5: Preparation of a list of Suitable officers.\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet at interval not ex-ceeding one<br \/>\nyear and prepare a list of such members of the State Police Service as are<br \/>\nheld by them to be suitable for promotion to the service. The number of<br \/>\nmembers of the State Police Service included in the list shall not be more<br \/>\nthan twice the number of substantive vacancies an-ticipated in the course<br \/>\nof the period of twelve months, commencing from the date of preparation of<br \/>\nthe list in the posts available for them under rule 9 of the Recruitment<br \/>\nRules;\n<\/p>\n<p>OR<\/p>\n<p>10 per cent of the senior posts shown against item 1 and 2 of the cadre<br \/>\nschedule of each State of Group of States, whichever is greater.\n<\/p>\n<p>Under Regulation, 5 the Select Committee is required to meet at an interval<br \/>\nnot exceeding one year. In order to prepare the select list for the year<br \/>\n1977, the Select Committee met on 23rd November, 1976. Regulation 5<br \/>\nprovides that the number of candidates to be included in the select list<br \/>\nshall not exceed twice the number of substantive vacancies anticipated in<br \/>\nthe course of the period of 12 months commencing from the date of<br \/>\npreparation of the list. In the present case, therefore, for preparing the<br \/>\nselect list for the year 1977, the Select Committee which met and prepared<br \/>\nthe list on 23.11.1976, was required to consider vacancies anticipated for<br \/>\nthe period November, 1976 to November, 1977. The number of candidates on<br \/>\nthe select list would be twice the anticipated vacancies. Regulation (5)<br \/>\nalso provides that the number on the select list should be atleast equal to<br \/>\n10% of the posts in the cadre allotted to the State in question. We are not<br \/>\nconcerned with this second part of Regulation 5 in the present case because<br \/>\nof the number under first part of Regulation 5 in the present case<br \/>\nexceeding 10% of the posts. However, one may note that the total posts<br \/>\nwhich were available to the State Police for the State of Tamil Nadu were\n<\/p>\n<p>80. Therefore, atleast a minimum of 8 names were required on the select<br \/>\nlist.\n<\/p>\n<p>In order to ascertain the number of anticipated vacancies for the period<br \/>\nNovember, 1976 to November, 1977 both the sides have relied upon Annexure D<br \/>\nto the Special Leave Petition which was also before the Central<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal. As per Annexure D, there were four vacancies which<br \/>\nwere existing at the time when the select list was prepared. These were<br \/>\ncarried forward from 1976 as no appointment was made to these four posts<br \/>\nfrom the select list of 14.7.1976. In addition, there were five anticipated<br \/>\nvacancies which would arise during the period February, 1977 to November,<br \/>\n1977. There is also a note that no vacancy was created during the year 1977<br \/>\ndue to death, dismissal or resignation of any officer. Therefore, as per<br \/>\nthe details set out in Annexure D, there were four existing vacancies and<br \/>\nfive anticipated vacancies at the time when the Select Committee met on<br \/>\n23.11.1976. Therefore, as per Regulation 5, the Committee considered the<br \/>\nnumber of anticipated vacancies as five, and prepared a select list<br \/>\nconsisting of twice that number, that is to say a select list of 10<br \/>\npersons. This select list of 10 persons was finally approved by the Union<br \/>\nPublic Service Commission on 21.1.1977. This became the select list for the<br \/>\nyear 1977. The name of the appellant does not figure in the select list of<br \/>\n10 persons so prepared for the year 1977. It is an accepted position that<br \/>\nin this select list of 10 persons, nobody junior to the appellant is<br \/>\nincluded. These are all persons senior to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>In connection with the existing vacancies, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondents has drawn our attention to Regulation 7(3) which provides that<br \/>\nthe list, as finally approved by the Union Public Service Commission, shall<br \/>\nform the select list of the members of the State Police Service for<br \/>\nappointment to the Indian Police Service. Under Regulation 7(4) the select<br \/>\nlist shall ordinarily be in force until its review and revision effected<br \/>\nunder Regulation 5(4) is approved under Sub-Regulation (1), or as the case<br \/>\nmay be, approved under Sub-Regulation (2). Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation<br \/>\n7 requires the Union Public Service Commission to consider the selection<br \/>\nlist prepared by the Select Committee and Sub-Regulation (2) of Regula-tion<br \/>\n7 enables the Union Public Service Commission, if it considers neces-sary,<br \/>\nto make changes in the list received in the manner set out in that Sub-<br \/>\nRegulation. Therefore, under regulation 7(4) the select list will operate<br \/>\nuntil the approval of the new select list by the Union Public Service<br \/>\nCommission. In the present case, therefore, when the Committee prepared the<br \/>\nnew select list on 23.11.1976, the select list for 1976 was in operation<br \/>\nand would have continued to operate till the approval of the new select<br \/>\nlist for 1977 by the Union Public Service Commission which normally takes<br \/>\nsome time. The Committee, therefore, could not have anticipated that any<br \/>\nexisting vacancies which were available for being-filled from the select<br \/>\nlist of 1976 would or not be filed by the time the new select list was<br \/>\napproved by the Union Public Service Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to an amendment<br \/>\nto Regulation 7 which has been made in the year 1989 by adding a proviso<br \/>\nfor the purpose of eliminating this problem of existing vacancies, and<br \/>\nwhether they should or should not be taken into account by the Select<br \/>\nCommittee while preparing a new list. The proviso which has been added in<br \/>\n1989 provides that no appointment to the service under Regulation 9 shall<br \/>\nbe made after the meeting of the fresh Committee to draw up a fresh list<br \/>\nunder Regulation 5 is held. This proviso, however, was not in existence at<br \/>\nthe material time. The Committee, therefore, was justified in not taking<br \/>\ninto account the existing vacancies for the purposes of Regulation 5. In<br \/>\nfact Regulation 5 in terms, makes no reference to any existing unfilled<br \/>\nvacancies. It fixes the number of candidates on the select list with<br \/>\nreference to anticipated vacancies during the coming year. The contention<br \/>\nof the appellant, therefore, that the Commission should have prepared a<br \/>\nlist of more than 10 persons for the year 1977 does not appear to be<br \/>\njustified.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant has added the four existing vacancies to the five anticipated<br \/>\nvacancies which makes a total of nine. He has, however, excluded from<br \/>\nconsideration the anticipated vacancy of 30.11.1977, thus reducing the<br \/>\ntotal number to eight. He has contended that a select list of sixteen<br \/>\nshould, therefore, have been prepared. His contention cannot be accepted in<br \/>\nview of the provisions of Regulation 5 and Regulation 7. The anticipated<br \/>\nvacancies were five, and preparation of a selection list of ten was in<br \/>\naccordance with Regulation 5.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a decision of<br \/>\nthis Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1852657\/\">Union of India v. M.G. Dighe &amp; Ors.,<\/a> [1991] 4 SCC 551. In<br \/>\nthat case the Court was concerned with the date from which anticipated<br \/>\nvacancies were required to be calculated for the purpose of preparing a<br \/>\nselect list. In that case a review DPC was required to be convened on<br \/>\naccount of a faulty list prepared by the original DPC. The Court said that<br \/>\nvacancies would have to be determined after reckoning 12 months from the<br \/>\ndate of the review DPC and not from the date when the original DPC had met.<br \/>\nThe Court said that the crucial date would remain the date of the meeting<br \/>\nof the DPC, but it would be the date of review DPC which would count for<br \/>\nthat purpose. We fail to see how this judgment helps the appellant in any<br \/>\nmanner. The second judgment which was relied upon by the appellant is the<br \/>\njudgment in the case of Devender Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar &amp; Ors.,<br \/>\n[1996] 11 SCC 342. In that case, on account of certain errors in preparing<br \/>\nthe select list for the year 1983, this Court had directed preparation of a<br \/>\nfresh list for the year 1983. Consequently a fresh select list was prepared<br \/>\nin the year 1985 and was approved by the Union Public Service Commission in<br \/>\nthe year 1986. This Court said that in view of the earlier directions given<br \/>\nby this Court the fresh select list prepared must be deemed to be a select<br \/>\nlist for year 1983 and hence the year of allotment of the officers promoted<br \/>\nin 1987 on the basis of the select list should be determined on the basis<br \/>\nthat they were included in the select list of 1983 and not on the basis of<br \/>\nthe approval of the list in 1986. This decision also turns upon its own<br \/>\nspecial facts and the specific directions given in that case earlier by<br \/>\nthis Court. This decision also does not assist the appellant in any way.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the present case the appellant was included for the first time in the<br \/>\nselect list of 1978 and on that basis he was promoted in the year 1979. His<br \/>\nonly grievance appears to be that his batchmate Balakrishnan was included<br \/>\nin the select list of 1977 while he himself was included only in the select<br \/>\nlist of 1978. Balakrishnan was also, in fact, promoted in the year 1979<br \/>\nbecause out of the select list of ten for 1977, only seven persons were<br \/>\nactually promoted. Balakrishnan has been throughout senior to the appel-<br \/>\nlant, although they were in the same batch. Even when both are promoted in<br \/>\n1979, Balakrishnan being senior to the appellant, has been so shown.<br \/>\nUndoubtedly because Balakrishnan was in the select list of 1977, while the<br \/>\nappellant was included only in the select list of 1978, Balakrishnan would<br \/>\nget seniority. But even if the appellant had been in the select list of<br \/>\n1977, Balakrishnan would still have been senior to him. Therefore, there is<br \/>\nno prejudice caused to the appellant by reason of the fact that his name is<br \/>\nincluded for the first time only in the select list of 1978.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the premises the present appeal is dismissed and the order of the<br \/>\nTribunal is upheld.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India V.C. Perumal vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 1999 Bench: Mrs. Sujata Manohar, R.C. Lahoti CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4168 of 1994 PETITIONER: V.C. PERUMAL RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/01\/1999 BENCH: MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR &amp; R.C. LAHOTI JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 1999 (1) SCR [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>V.C. Perumal vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 1999 - 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\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.C. Perumal vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-06T20:54:39+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.C. Perumal vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-06T20:54:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999\"},\"wordCount\":1827,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999\",\"name\":\"V.C. Perumal vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-06T20:54:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.C. Perumal vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"V.C. Perumal vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 1999 - 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\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.C. Perumal vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-06T20:54:39+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.C. Perumal vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 1999","datePublished":"1999-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-06T20:54:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999"},"wordCount":1827,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999","name":"V.C. Perumal vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-06T20:54:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-perumal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-20-january-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.C. Perumal vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 1999"}]},{"@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\/50083","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=50083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50083\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}