{"id":53394,"date":"2008-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008"},"modified":"2018-10-14T10:03:18","modified_gmt":"2018-10-14T04:33:18","slug":"qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Qualified Sanitary Inspector vs Secretary To Government Of Tamil &#8230; on 10 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Qualified Sanitary Inspector vs Secretary To Government Of Tamil &#8230; on 10 November, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 10\/11\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU\n\nW.P(MD)No.8045 of 2008\nand M.P(MD).Nos.2,4&amp;5 of 2008\n\nQualified Sanitary Inspector\nAssociation (Registration No.135\/1998),\nRep by its Secretary,\nS.Robert Ramesh\nPithalaipatty,\nDindigul Taluk, Dindigul District.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\nVs\n\n1.Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,\n  Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,\n  Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009.\n\n2.The Commissioner,\n  Municipal Administration,\n  Ezhilagam, Annex,\n  Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.\n3.The Director,\n  Public Health and Preventive Medicines,\n  No.359, Annasalai,\n  Chennai.\t\n4.A.Arivazhagan\n5.R.Athi Narayanan\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n[Respondents 4&amp;5 impleaded as per Order dated 04.11.2008 in M.P.No.3 of 2008 in\nW.P.(MD).No.8045 of 2008]\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to\nissue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to\nOrder dated 12.08.2008 passed by the second respondent herein in his\nR.O.C.No.7703\/08\/J1 and quash the same as illegal as against the Provision of\nTamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Regulations, 1970 and consequently directing\nthe second respondent to draw the panel for the post with eligible persons\nhaving required qualification as per the regulations.\n\t\t\n!For Petitioner\t\t... Mr.D.Selvaraj\n^For Respondents1to3\t... Mrs.R.Anitha\n\t\t\t    Additional Government Pleader\nFor Respondents 4&amp;5\t... Mr.S.Annamalai\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>*************<br \/>\n\tThe petitioner is the Secretary of Qualified Sanitary Inspector&#8217;s<br \/>\nAssociation (Registration No.135\/1998). In this Writ Petition, the petitioner<br \/>\nassociation challenges the proceedings of the second respondent in<br \/>\nR.O.C.No.7703\/08\/J1, dated 12.08.2008 alleging that the same is illegal and<br \/>\ncontrary to the Tamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Service Regulation, 1970.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. According to the petitioner, he is a Graduate in Chemistry subject. He<br \/>\njoined Gandhigram Rural Institute (Deemed University) in Sanitary Inspector<br \/>\nCourse, which was then of one year duration. After undergoing the said course,<br \/>\nhe has registered his name with the employment exchange on 26.10.1998. While he<br \/>\nwas expecting that his name would be sponsored for the post of Sanitary<br \/>\nInspector, [category 1, class IV of regulation 2] under the Tamil Nadu Municipal<br \/>\nPublic Health Service Regulations 1970, the second respondent, by means of the<br \/>\nimpugned proceedings, has furnished the service particulars in respect of<br \/>\nSanitary Supervisors\/Field Assistants who are already in service and who have<br \/>\ncompleted condensed Sanitary Inspector course for six months conducted by the<br \/>\nDirector of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai for giving promotion<br \/>\nas Sanitary Inspectors. The said list was furnished to the second respondent<br \/>\nherein. The said proceedings is under challenge in this Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the<br \/>\nqualification prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Service<br \/>\nRegulations 1970, a candidate, to be eligible for being recruited either by<br \/>\nmeans of transfer from the category of Field Assistants or Sanitary Supervisors<br \/>\nor by means of direct recruitment, should possess Sanitary Inspector&#8217;s<br \/>\nCertificate granted by the Additional Director, Health Service and Family<br \/>\nPlanning, Chennai or must possess a Health Inspector&#8217;s Certificate awarded by<br \/>\nthe Principal, Medical College, Trivandrum or must possess a Sanitary<br \/>\nInspector&#8217;s Certificate, awarded by the Director of Public Health, Bombay or<br \/>\nSanitary Certificate awarded by the Gandhigram Rural University. He would submit<br \/>\nthat in all these institutions, the duration of the said course is one year, and<br \/>\ntherefore, the impugned list, which contains the list of candidates, who have<br \/>\nundergone condensed course of duration of six months, is not legally<br \/>\nsustainable; if these unqualified persons, who have undergone the course only<br \/>\nfor six months, are recruited by means of transfer, that would affect the<br \/>\nchances of the members of the petitioner&#8217;s association to get appointed by means<br \/>\nof direct recruitment. The members of the petitioner&#8217;s association are fully<br \/>\nqualified, as they have completed one year course. Therefore, according to the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. A detailed counter has been filed by the second respondent, wherein<br \/>\ninter alia, it has been stated that originally the duration of the said course<br \/>\nwas one year. But, later on, pursuant to the Order of this Court in<br \/>\nW.P.Nos.19702, 19703 and 19704 of 2007, dated 09.06.2008, the Government has<br \/>\nissued G.O.Ms.No.53, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 12.02.2007,<br \/>\nthereby approving to conduct condensed training for Sanitary Supervisors and<br \/>\nField Assistants for six months. The impugned list contains the names of those<br \/>\nSanitary Supervisors and Field Assistants who have undergone the said course,<br \/>\nand therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned list. She would submit<br \/>\nthat according to the Rules, there is no prescription in respect of the duration<br \/>\nof the course. The duration of the course is to be prescribed only by the<br \/>\nGovernment and the Government has now prescribed the duration of the course as<br \/>\nsix months for Sanitary Supervisors and Field Assistants who are already in<br \/>\nservice. Therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference at the<br \/>\nhands of this Court, it is contended.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 would submit that their<br \/>\nnames do find a place in the impugned proceedings. Since they have undergone the<br \/>\ncondensed course of six months and certificate has also been issued by the<br \/>\nGovernment, they are eligible for being promoted as Sanitary Inspectors.<br \/>\nTherefore, he would pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. I have considered the rival submissions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Before adverting to the facts of the case, let me have a glance through<br \/>\nthe relevant provisions of Tamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Service<br \/>\nRegulations 1970, hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Regulations&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. As per the regulation, the post of Sanitary Inspector has been<br \/>\nclassified as category 1 in class IV. Class 2 of the regulation speaks of the<br \/>\nmode of appointment which is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Category 1:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBy recruitment by transfer from the category of Field Assistant or<br \/>\nSanitary Supervisor coming under the Tamil Nadu Municipal (Non-Centralised<br \/>\nRegular) Public Health Establishment Regulations, 1976, or\n<\/p>\n<p>2. By direct recruitment if no qualified Field Assistant or Sanitary Supervisor<br \/>\nis available&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Class 6 of the regulation speaks of the qualification. It states &#8220;no<br \/>\nperson shall be appointed to the class and category specified in column (1)<br \/>\nbelow, unless he possesses the qualifications specified in the corresponding<br \/>\nentry in column (ii) thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tClass 4 reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Class IV: Category 1\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) Must possess a Sanitary Inspector&#8217;s Certificate granted by the<br \/>\nAdditional Director of Health Services and Family Planning, Chennai as the<br \/>\nChairman, Board of Examiners constituted by Government in this behalf; or must<br \/>\npossess a Health Inspector&#8217;s Certificate awarded by the Principal Medical<br \/>\nCollege, Trivandrum or must possess a Sanitary Inspector&#8217;s Certificate awarded<br \/>\nby the Director of Public Health, Bombay; or Sanitary Inspector Certificate<br \/>\nawarded by the Gandhigram Rural Institute; and\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) Must possess physical fitness for camp life and satisfy the physical<br \/>\nstandard prescribed for Health Inspectors&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. A conjoint reading of the above two provisions would keep things<br \/>\nbeyond pale of any doubt that  appointment to the post of Sanitary Inspector can<br \/>\nbe made either by recruitment by transfer or if there are no qualified Sanitary<br \/>\nSupervisors or Field Assistants available in the department, then direct<br \/>\nrecruitment can be resorted to. But, in this case, according to the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner, though the persons, whose names have been furnished<br \/>\nin the impugned proceedings, are already working either as Sanitary Supervisors<br \/>\nor Filed Assistants, still they do not have essential qualification of having<br \/>\nundergone the Sanitary Inspector&#8217;s Certificate course of duration of one year,<br \/>\nand so, it should be declared that there are no eligible candidates in the<br \/>\ndepartment for recruitment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. I have given an anxious consideration to the said contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. A cursory perusal of the qualification prescribed in the Regulation<br \/>\nwould go to show that the regulation does not prescribe any duration for the<br \/>\nSanitary Inspector&#8217;s Certificate Course and it only states that a person to be<br \/>\neligible for being appointed as Sanitary Inspector, should possess a Sanitary<br \/>\nInspector&#8217;s Certificate granted by the Additional Director, Health Service and<br \/>\nFamily Planning, Chennai or similar certificate issued by the other authorities<br \/>\nmentioned therein. Nowhere it has been prescribed that the candidates should<br \/>\nhave undergone the said course of duration of one year compulsorily.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader<br \/>\nthat though it is true that prior to the  year 2007, the duration of the said<br \/>\ncourse was one year, as per G.O.Ms.No.53, Health and Family Welfare Department,<br \/>\ndated 12.02.2007, the Government has approved the condensed training for<br \/>\nSanitary Supervisors and Field Assistants for six months for the benefit of<br \/>\nthose people who have been already working in the department for a long period.<br \/>\nIt should be remembered that the petitioner has not challenged the legality and<br \/>\ncorrectness of G.O.Ms.No.53, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated<br \/>\n12.02.2007, and instead, he challenges only the proceedings of the second<br \/>\nrespondent. So long as the duration of the said course has been approved by the<br \/>\nGovernment as six months those people who have undergone the said course of<br \/>\nduration of six months, in my considered opinion, are eligible to be promoted as<br \/>\nSanitary Inspectors.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. It should be again emphasized that the qualification prescribed for<br \/>\nappointment in the regulation does not say that duration of the said course<br \/>\nshould be one year in all cases. The duration of the said course is to be<br \/>\ndecided only by the Government. But, in this case, for the reasons known to the<br \/>\nGovernment, the Government has prescribed the duration of the said condensed<br \/>\ncourse as six months.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 has produced the<br \/>\nSanitary Inspector&#8217;s Condensed Course Certificates issued by the Government of<br \/>\nTamil Nadu to the respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, I am of the view that the<br \/>\ncondensed course for duration of six months satisfies the requirements of the<br \/>\nregulation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a Judgment of the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1591733\/\">Secretary, State of Karnataka, v. Umadevi<\/a> reported in<br \/>\n2006 (4) SCC 1. He relies on paragraph 34 of the said Judgment, wherein, the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has referred to an earlier Judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/13482\/\">A.Umarani v. Registrar, Coop Societies<\/a> reported in 2004 (7) SCC 112. It<br \/>\nis stated by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment that if appointments<br \/>\nwere made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory<br \/>\nrules framed thereunder and by ignoring essential qualifications, the<br \/>\nappointments would be illegal and cannot be regularized by the State. Similarly,<br \/>\nthe learned counsel for the petitioner relies on an another Judgment of the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar v U.P.Secondary Education Services<br \/>\nCommission reported in 2008 (7) SCC 153, wherein the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has<br \/>\nheld &#8220;the qualification for holding a post have been laid down under a statute.<br \/>\nAny appointment in violation thereof would be a nullity&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. Applying the law laid down by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the above<br \/>\nsaid Judgments, if the facts of the present case are considered, as I have<br \/>\nalready held earlier, since the Sanitary Inspector&#8217;s Certificate course of<br \/>\nduration of six months satisfies the qualification prescribed in the regulation<br \/>\nand since the same is not in violation of the said regulation, I am of the<br \/>\nconsidered view that the impugned proceeding does not require any interference<br \/>\nat the hands of this Court at all. The impugned proceeding cannot be said to be<br \/>\neither illegal or arbitrary or void as it is stated by the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. As I have already stated that since there are eligible candidates<br \/>\nalready working as Sanitary Supervisors and Field Assistants with required<br \/>\nqualification, the impugned proceeding has been issued to consider them for<br \/>\npromotion as Sanitary Inspectors. After promoting these people, if still there<br \/>\nare vacancies, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1<br \/>\nto 3 would submit that the authorities would resort to direct recruitment, in<br \/>\nwhich case, the claim of the petitioner association would be considered. The<br \/>\nsaid statement of the learned Additional Government Pleader is recorded.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. In view of all the above positions, I do not find any merit in this<br \/>\nWrit Petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.Ps are also<br \/>\ndismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>NB<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\n  Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,<br \/>\n  Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Commissioner,<br \/>\n  Municipal Administration,<br \/>\n  Ezhilagam, Annex,<br \/>\n  Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Director,<br \/>\n  Public Health and Preventive Medicines,<br \/>\n  No.359, Annasalai,<br \/>\n  Chennai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Qualified Sanitary Inspector vs Secretary To Government Of Tamil &#8230; on 10 November, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10\/11\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P(MD)No.8045 of 2008 and M.P(MD).Nos.2,4&amp;5 of 2008 Qualified Sanitary Inspector Association (Registration No.135\/1998), Rep by its Secretary, S.Robert Ramesh Pithalaipatty, Dindigul Taluk, [&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-53394","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>Qualified Sanitary Inspector vs Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Qualified Sanitary Inspector vs Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-14T04:33:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Qualified Sanitary Inspector vs Secretary To Government Of Tamil &#8230; on 10 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-14T04:33:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1866,\"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\\\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Qualified Sanitary Inspector vs Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-14T04:33:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Qualified Sanitary Inspector vs Secretary To Government Of Tamil &#8230; on 10 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Qualified Sanitary Inspector vs Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Qualified Sanitary Inspector vs Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-14T04:33:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Qualified Sanitary Inspector vs Secretary To Government Of Tamil &#8230; on 10 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-14T04:33:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008"},"wordCount":1866,"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\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008","name":"Qualified Sanitary Inspector vs Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-14T04:33:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/qualified-sanitary-inspector-vs-secretary-to-government-of-tamil-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Qualified Sanitary Inspector vs Secretary To Government Of Tamil &#8230; on 10 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53394","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=53394"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53394\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}