{"id":53433,"date":"2011-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011"},"modified":"2017-11-25T07:26:53","modified_gmt":"2017-11-25T01:56:53","slug":"m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"M.Balamurugan vs The Commissioner on 12 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.Balamurugan vs The Commissioner on 12 November, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 12\/11\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.10802 of 2006\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.2\/2006 and 1\/2010\n\nM.Balamurugan,\nAssistant Engineer\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.The Commissioner,\n   Madurai City Municipal Corporation,\n   Madurai-625 001.\n\n2.The Commissioner of Municipal\n   Administration, Chepauk,\n   Chennai-600 005.\n\n3.The Secretary to Government,\n   Municipal Administration and Water\n   Supply Department,\n   Fort St. George,\n   Chennai-600 009.\n4.M.R.Samy\n5.S.Sethuramalingam\n6.S.Chandrasekar\n7.S.M.Rajendran\n8.S.Arasu\n9.K.Mohamed Asaraf Ali\n10.L.Murugesan\n11.K.Ganesan\n12.Thirugnanasambandan\n13.B.Baliah\n14.R.Alexander\n15.M.Muniyandi\n16.S.Kulandaivel\n17.P.Maharaja\n18.M.P.Manoharan\n19.M.Kamaraj\n   [R-4 to R-19 impleaded  as per order of this Court\n    dated 21.04.2007 made in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2007]\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for\nthe records relating to the impugned proceedings in Ma.Ni.No.1\/35042\/2005, dated\n28.02.2006 and also the consequential order passed by him in proceedings\nMa.Ni.No.1\/35042\/2005, dated 13.11.2006 and the proceedings dated 12.01.2007 and\n18.01.2007 in Ma.Ni.No.35042\/2005 of the first respondent herein, quash the same\nand consequently, direct the first respondent herein to place the petitioner as\nserial No.3 in the final seniority list dated 12.01.2007 and promote the\npetitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer.\n[Prayer amended as per order of this Court dated 09.06.2007 made in\nM.P.(MD)No.3 of 2007]\n\n!For Petitioner\t  \t... Mr.D.Rajendiran\n^For Respondent No.1\t... Mr.M.Ravi Shankar\nFor Respondents 2&amp;3\t... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen\n\t\t\t    Additional Government Pleader\nFor Respondents 4to9\t... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy\nFor Respondent No.11\t... Mr.R.Rajaraman\nFor Respondents 15&amp;18   ... Mr.B.Saravanan\nFor Respondent No.14\t... Mr.Mayil Vahana Rajendran\nFor Respondent No.19\t... Mr.S.Visvalingam\nFor Respondents 10,12,\n13,16,17\t\t... No Appearance\n\t\n\t\t\t\t             ******\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>*******<br \/>\n\t\tThe Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an<br \/>\norder passed by the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai,<br \/>\ndated 13.11.2006. By the impugned communication, the petitioner was informed<br \/>\nthat his request for considering his case for the post of Assistant Executive<br \/>\nEngineers cannot be considered, as the petitioner was not senior to two persons,<br \/>\nwho were considered for the said post and he has no right to claim any seniority<br \/>\nover those persons whose names were included in the panel for the post of<br \/>\nAssistant Executive Engineers. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition<br \/>\ncame to be filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 04.12.2006, this<br \/>\nCourt ordered notice of motion and private notice was also ordered. Pending the<br \/>\nnotice of motion, though the petitioner sought for an order of interim stay of<br \/>\nthe impugned proceedings, this Court, vide order dated 27.07.2009, granted an<br \/>\ninterim order to the effect that any promotion made out of impugned panel of<br \/>\nseniority is, subject to the result of the Writ Petition and considering the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances, Registry was directed to list the matter for final<br \/>\ndisposal on 19.08.2009. Subsequently, the petitioner filed applications to amend<br \/>\nthe prayer and also to implead the contesting respondents as parties to the main<br \/>\nWrit Petition. Both the applications were allowed. As the matter was not listed<br \/>\nwithin a reasonable period, the petitioner also filed an application for fixing<br \/>\nan early date. For the reasons best known, the matter was not listed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. In the meanwhile, the first respondent has filed a counter-<br \/>\naffidavit dated 02.01.2007 and the fourteenth respondent by name R.Alexandar has<br \/>\nalso filed a counter-affidavit dated 13.08.2007 together with the typed-set of<br \/>\npapers containing the relevant documents in support of his counter-affidavit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either<br \/>\nside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. The contention of the petitioner was that the post in the<br \/>\nMunicipal Corporation is governed by the provisions of the Tami Nadu Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation Service Rules, 1996, which are framed in terms of Section 106 of the<br \/>\nMadurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971. Under the said rules, a person,<br \/>\nwho was appointed in service, must complete a probation and his work should be<br \/>\nsatisfactory for a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of<br \/>\nthree years. Rule 4 also states that a temporary promotee to higher post cannot<br \/>\nbe authorised by virtue of promotion, if he does not possess the qualification<br \/>\nprescribed for such promotion.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. The learned counsel also produced the Special Rules relating to<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Municipal Corporations Engineering and Water Supply Service Rules,<br \/>\n1996, by which, in Clause-I and Clause-II, posts are constituted and the post of<br \/>\nAssistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer comes under clause-II. While<br \/>\nthe post of Assistant Executive Engineer is in Category-1 in Group-1, the post<br \/>\nof Assistant Engineer is in Category-1 in Group-II. The post of Assistant<br \/>\nExecutive Engineer is filled by promotion and the qualification prescribed was a<br \/>\nperson must have worked as an Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer for not less<br \/>\nthan one year in the Engineering Department of the Corporation main Office and<br \/>\nnot less than for a period of three years in the Ward Offices. Insofar as any<br \/>\nratio for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer is concerned,<br \/>\nRule 5 of the Special Rules do not prescribe any ratio and it merely states that<br \/>\nthe Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers shall be considered as a single<br \/>\ncategory and under Rule 6, promotion to the posts shall be made in accordance<br \/>\nwith seniority and appointment on deputation shall be made only when no<br \/>\nqualified person is available in the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. According to the counsel, the contesting respondents, who were<br \/>\nshown as seniors to him for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive<br \/>\nEngineer, did not pass the departmental tests and did not complete their<br \/>\nprobation, within a reasonable time. While the petitioner had passed the test as<br \/>\nearly as on 03.06.2003, some other have passed the tests only in the year 2005.<br \/>\nBut the Corporation, for reasons best known, did not prepare any panel for<br \/>\npromotion to the higher posts. If only a panel was prepared in respect of each<br \/>\nyear, in which, vacancy will arise, then there is a possibility of the<br \/>\npetitioner being included in the panel. Even though he might have been shown as<br \/>\njunior in the earlier list, he was only a qualified person at the relevant time<br \/>\nfor the year 2003 to be included in the panel.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. The contention that the reason given by the Corporation for not<br \/>\npreparing the panel was due to the ban order by the State Government cannot be<br \/>\naccepted, since G.O.(Ms)No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P)<br \/>\nDepartment, dated 29.11.2001, is applicable only to direct recruitment and not<br \/>\nto promotion and the letter following the said Government Order dated 19.12.2001<br \/>\nwas relied upon to state that there was a specific exclusion of promotion from<br \/>\nthe ban order and, therefore, the Corporation&#8217;s action in not preparing the<br \/>\npanel for the years 2003 and 2004 ought not to be accepted and the respondents<br \/>\nshould be directed to prepare a panel in respect of those years and if there is<br \/>\nany vacancy for the said post, then the petitioner should be accommodated<br \/>\nagainst the said post.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. Reliance was only placed upon a consequential letter followed by<br \/>\nthe Government Order. But the intention of the Government Order itself was to<br \/>\neffect economy in expenditure and also in filling up of vacant posts to be<br \/>\navoided and only exemption was granted to the post of teachers, doctors and<br \/>\npolice. Therefore, the Corporation, either on correct understanding or on an<br \/>\nextended understanding of the said Government Order, decides not to fill up the<br \/>\nposts at the relevant time. The petitioner cannot be heard to contend all those<br \/>\nthings. In essence, he cannot direct the Corporation to create a vacancy to<br \/>\naccommodate the petitioner, if there was no vacancy at the relevant time or if<br \/>\nthe Corporation chooses not to fill up the post in a particular year, for the<br \/>\nreasons best known to them.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. The contention that subsequently the persons, who were shown<br \/>\nabove in the seniority list, had completed the probation is not a relevant<br \/>\nfactor for the purpose of deciding as to whether the petitioner was a senior or<br \/>\njunior to the contesting respondents. On the other hand, Rule 5 cited by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner clearly states that in the matter of filling<br \/>\nup the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers, all the posts of Assistant<br \/>\nEngineers and Junior Engineers will be considered as single category and Rule 6<br \/>\nclearly states that the posts shall be filled up in accordance with seniority.<br \/>\nTherefore, the only question to be decided was whether the petitioner was senior<br \/>\nto the persons, who are shown in the seniority list prepared and exhibited on<br \/>\n12.01.2007. The list produced by the fourteenth respondent clearly shows that<br \/>\nthe fourteenth respondent was in serial No.12, while the petitioner is in serial<br \/>\nNo.18. Even though both the persons were appointed on the same day, the<br \/>\nseniority list that has been exhibited right from the date of appointment shows<br \/>\nthat the fourteenth respondent was senior to the petitioner, who is only in the<br \/>\neighteenth rank. In the present case, the petitioner does not contend that at<br \/>\nthe time of appointment when the Corporation prepared seniority list, such<br \/>\npersons have been shown as senior to him. Such questions cannot be gone into in<br \/>\nthis Writ Petition and that is not a prayer of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11. On the other hand, the ground urged by the petitioner was that<br \/>\nhe had completed probation much earlier to others and, therefore, he should be<br \/>\nshown as senior. This argument does not hold good. The preparation of seniority<br \/>\nlist is different from the preparation of the panel for higher posts. The<br \/>\ncompletion of probation or otherwise will have no relevance in the matter of<br \/>\npreparation of seniority list, whereas in the preparation of panel for higher<br \/>\nposts, completion of probation may have a bearing on the said panel. In this<br \/>\ncontext, the counter-affidavit filed by the Corporation clearly refers to Rule<br \/>\n17 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporation Service Rules to the effect that any<br \/>\ndelay in passing of orders of completion of probation shall not monetarily<br \/>\naffect the approved probationers and all individuals, who have passed<br \/>\ndepartmental tests within the time provided under the Service Rules, were<br \/>\ndeclared as approved probationers by the Council of the Corporation. Therefore,<br \/>\nthe question is whether the petitioner or the contesting respondents were<br \/>\napproved probationers on the day when the panel was prepared. Therefore,<br \/>\npromotion can be effected only in terms of the relevant rules and the contention<br \/>\nof the petitioner cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12. In paragraph No.9 of the counter, it is stated that on<br \/>\n01.04.2006, which was a crucial date for preparing the seniority list for the<br \/>\npost of Assistant Executive Engineers, three persons are eligible, viz.,<br \/>\nV.Mohandoss, K.N.Damotharan and A.Mathuram and the remaining two posts were<br \/>\nvacant. Since the above said Mohandoss and Damotharan were included in the panel<br \/>\nfor the existing two vacancies for the post of Executive Engineer and there was<br \/>\na proposal for sanctioning five additional posts under Jawaharlal Nehru Urban<br \/>\nRenewal Mission Scheme, the Corporation prepared a panel containing nine<br \/>\neligible members for the post of Assistant Executive Engineers from the final<br \/>\nseniority list of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers dated 18.07.2006. It<br \/>\nwas sent to the State Government for approval. It was also stated that the<br \/>\nfourteenth respondent by name Alexander had passed the departmental test in the<br \/>\nyear 2003. Therefore, his name could not be included in the panel for the post<br \/>\nof Assistant Executive Engineer without complying with the pre-condition of<br \/>\nworking as Assistant Engineer in the main office for a period of minimum one<br \/>\nyear.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13. The contention that the Corporation did not prepare the panels<br \/>\ndeliberately for the year 2003, 2004 and 2005 was denied. It was stated that<br \/>\neven at the relevant time, two posts of Assistant Engineers were vacant. But, at<br \/>\nthe relevant time, the petitioner was not eligible for being included in the<br \/>\npanel for the post of Assistant Executive Engineers. For the period from 2003 to<br \/>\n2006, there was a ban order by the State Government and even if any panel is<br \/>\nprepared, it could not have been given effect to, in view of the ban order. The<br \/>\nsimilar stand was taken by the fourteenth respondent in his counter affidavit.<br \/>\nThe fourteenth respondent also additionally stated that at the relevant time,<br \/>\nthe petitioner was kept under suspension for certain misconduct. However, it is<br \/>\nunnecessary to go into the other details, since the petitioner has not made out<br \/>\nany case either for altering the seniority list or for inclusion of his name in<br \/>\nthe panel on the earlier years.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t14. In view of the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition cannot be<br \/>\ncountenanced by this Court. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.<br \/>\nConsequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>SML<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Commissioner,<br \/>\n   Madurai City Municipal Corporation,<br \/>\n   Madurai-625 001.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Commissioner of Municipal<br \/>\n   Administration, Chepauk,<br \/>\n   Chennai-600 005.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n   Municipal Administration and Water<br \/>\n   Supply Department,<br \/>\n   Fort St. George,<br \/>\n   Chennai-600 009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M.Balamurugan vs The Commissioner on 12 November, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12\/11\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.10802 of 2006 and M.P.(MD)Nos.2\/2006 and 1\/2010 M.Balamurugan, Assistant Engineer &#8230; Petitioner vs. 1.The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai-625 001. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. [&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-53433","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M.Balamurugan vs The Commissioner on 12 November, 2011 - 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\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Balamurugan vs The Commissioner on 12 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-25T01:56:53+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Balamurugan vs The Commissioner on 12 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-25T01:56:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1864,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011\",\"name\":\"M.Balamurugan vs The Commissioner on 12 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-25T01:56:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Balamurugan vs The Commissioner on 12 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.Balamurugan vs The Commissioner on 12 November, 2011 - 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\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Balamurugan vs The Commissioner on 12 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-25T01:56:53+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Balamurugan vs The Commissioner on 12 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-25T01:56:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011"},"wordCount":1864,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011","name":"M.Balamurugan vs The Commissioner on 12 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-25T01:56:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-balamurugan-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Balamurugan vs The Commissioner on 12 November, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/53433","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=53433"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53433\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}