{"id":59915,"date":"2011-01-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011"},"modified":"2018-02-18T03:22:37","modified_gmt":"2018-02-17T21:52:37","slug":"v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"V. Lakshmi vs The Special Commissioner on 11 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V. Lakshmi vs The Special Commissioner on 11 January, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 11\/01\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL\n\nWrit Petition (MD) No. 9685 of 2008\nand\nM.P(MD)No.2 of 2008\n\nV. Lakshmi\t\t\t\t...\tPetitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.  The Special Commissioner\n      and Secretary to Government\n    Social Welfare &amp; N.N.P\n      (S.W.7) Department\n    Secretariat\n    Chennai.\n\n2.  The District Collector\n    Ramanathapuram District\n    Ramanathapuram.\n\n3.  The District Program Officer\n    Social Welfare and Nutritious\n      Meal Program\n    Ramanathapuram.\n\n4.  The District Child Development\n      Project Officer\n    Ramanathapuram.\n\n5.  P. Maheshwari\t\t\t...\tRespondents\n\t\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying\nfor the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in\nNa.Ka.No.1656\/A1\/08 dated 11\/10\/2008 of the second respondent quash the same and\nconsequently direct the second respondent to appoint the petitioner as the Mini\nAnganwadi worker for Patti (Posukudi) centre.\n\n!For petitioner  ...\tMr.B.Pugalendhi\n^For respondents ...\tMr.D.Sasikumar,\n\t\t\tGovt.Advocate for R.1\n\t\t\tMr.R.Gowri Shankar\n\t\t\tfor R.5.\t\t\n- - - - -\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>     The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking the relief of a<br \/>\nwrit of certiorarified mandamus in calling for the records in<br \/>\nNa.Ka.No.1656\/A1\/08 dated 11\/10\/2008 of the second respondent\/District<br \/>\nCollector, Ramanathapuram and to quash the same and also resultantly, directing<br \/>\nhim to appoint the petitioner as &#8220;Mini Anganwadi Worker&#8221; for Patti (Posukudi)<br \/>\nCentre.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.  Before dealing into the merits of the case, the factual back drop of<br \/>\nthe case is stated hereunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAccording to the petitioner, the Government by means of G.O.Ms.No.186<br \/>\nSocial Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program Department dated 4\/10\/2007 has<br \/>\naccorded sanction for creation of 3,168 mini centres in Tamil Nadu.  The first<br \/>\nrespondent pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order, has issued the following<br \/>\nguidelines in respect of appointment of &#8220;Mini Anganwadi Workers&#8221;.  They are as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\ta.  The candidate should be a female and preference should be given to<br \/>\ndestitute widows &amp; poor, SC\/ST Minorities as per the rules in force.<br \/>\n\tb.  Age:  20 years to 35 years of age relaxation upto 40 years will be<br \/>\ngiven to widows, deserted women and candidates in hill areas.<br \/>\n\tc.  Educational qualification:-  10th Standard passed.<br \/>\n\td.  Residential criteria:-  Shall be residing within a distance of 3 Kms<br \/>\nfrom the centre and in the case of non-availability of any local candidates,<br \/>\npersons residing in a radius of 10 Kms shall be considered.<br \/>\n\te.  Mode of appointment:-  Selection Committee comprising of District<br \/>\nProgram Officer, Child Development Project Officer and Medical Officer shall<br \/>\nselect the eligible candidates.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tf.  Appointing authority:-  Eligible candidate selected by the selection<br \/>\nCommittee shall be appointed by the District Collector.<br \/>\n\tg.  Honorarium:-  As ordered in G.O.Ms.No.186, Social Welfare and<br \/>\nNutritious Meal Programme Department dated 4\/10\/2007.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.  The second respondent\/District Collector, Ramanathapuram, by his order<br \/>\ndated 2\/7\/2008, directed the third respondent\/District Program Officer,<br \/>\nRamanathapuram to fill up the vacancies for Mini Anganwadis in Ramanathapuram<br \/>\nDistrict.  The third respondent by his proceedings dated 2\/7\/2008 called for<br \/>\nfilling up the vacancies.  The petitioner has applied for the post of &#8220;Mini<br \/>\nAnganwadi Worker&#8221; for  Patti (Posukudi).  A call letter dated 21\/7\/2008 has been<br \/>\nsent to the petitioner for an interview slated on 25\/7\/2008 by the fourth<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.  One Kalaiselvi, Vellayammal, Kamatchi, Sridevi, Kavitha, Maheshwari<br \/>\nhave attended the interview along with the petitioner on 25\/7\/2008.  All the<br \/>\nparticipants in the interview are from Most Backward Communities.  The<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s husband expired on 4\/12\/2007 and she is a destitute widow.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.  The second respondent\/District Collector, Ramanathapuram, by means of<br \/>\nhis proceedings dated 11\/10\/2008 has temporarily appointed the fifth respondent<br \/>\nfor the post of &#8220;Mini Anganwadi Worker&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.  The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that as<br \/>\nper Government letter dated 20\/3\/2008, wherein guidelines have been issued, the<br \/>\npetitioner should have been selected instead of the fifth respondent by the<br \/>\nthird and fourth respondents and on whose recommendation, the second respondent<br \/>\nhas appointed the fifth respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.  The learned counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that<br \/>\nthe impugned appointment order dated 11\/10\/2008 issued by the second<br \/>\nRespondent\/District Collector, Ramanathapuram, is against the basic rules for<br \/>\nappointment to the post of &#8220;Anganwadi Workers&#8221; and therefore, it is not legally<br \/>\nsustainable in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.  It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that<br \/>\npreference ought to be given to the destitute widows and poor and the impugned<br \/>\norder dated 11\/10\/2008 passed by the second respondent\/District Collector in<br \/>\nappointing the fifth respondent is against the guidelines issued by the first<br \/>\nrespondent dated 20\/3\/1988 and as such, the impugned order of the second<br \/>\nrespondent dated 11\/10\/2008 is to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.  The sum and substance of the plea put forward on the side of the writ<br \/>\npetitioner is that the writ petitioner and the fifth respondent belong to the<br \/>\nMost Backward Community and that the petitioner comes under the category of<br \/>\nDestitute woman\/widow and as such, she should have been appointed instead of the<br \/>\nfifth respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.  Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate<br \/>\nappearing for Respondents 1 to 4 that the third respondent\/ District Program<br \/>\nOfficer issued a Notification to fill up the vacancies of the Anganwadi Workers<br \/>\nand Helpers in Ramanathapuram on 2\/7\/2008 and the said Notification, included<br \/>\nthe Patti (Posukudi) Centre.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.  According to the learned Government Advocate appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondents 1 to 4, the petitioner has applied for the post of &#8220;Anganwadi<br \/>\nWorker&#8221; for Anganwadi Patti and as per the interview call letter sent to the<br \/>\npetitioner, she has attended the interview on 27\/8\/2008 and she has produced the<br \/>\nrelevant documents and certificates before the Selection Committee.  The<br \/>\nSelection Committee comprising of the third respondent\/District Program Officer,<br \/>\nthe fourth respondent\/District Child Development Project Officer, Ramanathapuram<br \/>\nand the District Medical Officer have to select an eligible candidate.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.  The contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for<br \/>\nRespondents 1 to 4 is that the fifth respondent\/Maheshwari is aged 29 years,<br \/>\nwhereas the petitioner&#8217;s age has been 22 and the fifth respondent has been seven<br \/>\nyears senior in age than that of the petitioner which has been taken into<br \/>\naccount by the Selection Committee for her appointment and hence the fifth<br \/>\nrespondent\/ Maheshwari is a more qualified person inasmuch as she has completed<br \/>\nB.A.Degree (History).  In effect, the contention of the learned Government<br \/>\nAdvocate appearing for R.R.1 to 4 is the Selective Committee has recommended the<br \/>\nfifth respondent for the post of &#8220;Mini Anganwadi Worker&#8221; for Patti (Posukudi)<br \/>\nCentre and accordingly, the second respondent\/District Collector, Ramanathapuram<br \/>\nin his impugned proceeding dated 11\/10\/2008 has appointed the fifth respondent<br \/>\ntemporarily as &#8220;Mini  Anganwadi Worker&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.  It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Destitute widow.<br \/>\nFurther, as per letter No.355\/S.W.7(1)\/2008-2 dated 20\/3\/2008 of the first<br \/>\nrespondent\/Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare &amp;<br \/>\nNMP (S.W.7) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9, a preference should be given to<br \/>\nthe destitute widows and poor, SC\/ST Minorities as per the Rules in force and<br \/>\nthe age limit has been prescribed as 20 &#8211; 35 years of age.  Relaxation upto 40<br \/>\nyears will be given to widows, deserted  women and candidates in hill areas.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.  A scrutiny of the letter No.355\/S.W.7(1)\/ 2008-2 dated 20\/3\/2008 of<br \/>\nthe first respondent\/Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social<br \/>\nWelfare &amp; NMP (S.W.7) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9 candidly points out<br \/>\nthat the destitute widow and poor belonging to SC\/ST Minority Communities, will<br \/>\nhave to be given preference in the matter of selection of an eligible candidate<br \/>\nfor the post of &#8220;Mini Anganwadi Worker&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.  Generally, in the matter of appointments, the view taken by the<br \/>\nexpert Committee or Selection Committee cannot be interfered with, because of<br \/>\nthe simple fact that the persons who are in the Selection Committee or expert<br \/>\nCommittee are supposed to be the right persons for selecting the eligible<br \/>\ncandidate for a particular post.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.  As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner is a<br \/>\ndestitute widow aged about 23 years.  However, her qualification is SSLC (X<br \/>\nStandard).  But the selected person namely the fifth respondent is aged 29 years<br \/>\nat the time of her selection and her qualification is B.A.Degree (History).<br \/>\nThough an endeavour has been made on the part of R.R.1 to 4 that the fifth<br \/>\nrespondent is senior in age by seven years to that of the petitioner and<br \/>\nfurther, she has completed B.A.(History),  yet this Court is of the considered<br \/>\nview that in the instant case on hand, the preference to be given to the<br \/>\ndestitute widow namely the petitioner as per the letter No.355\/S.W.7(1)\/2008-2<br \/>\ndated 20\/3\/2008 of the first respondent\/Special Commissioner and Secretary to<br \/>\nGovernment, Social Welfare &amp; NMP (S.W.7) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9 has<br \/>\nnot been obviously kept in mind or taken into consideration by the Selection<br \/>\nCommittee or by the second Respondent\/District Collector, Ramanathapuram while<br \/>\nissuing the impugned order dated 11\/10\/2008 in appointing the fifth respondent<br \/>\noverriding the case of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.  At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the<br \/>\nlearned Government Advocate appearing for R.R.1 to 4 that the fifth respondent,<br \/>\nwho has been appointed as per the order of the second respondent\/District<br \/>\nCollector, Ramanathapuram dated 11\/10\/2008 is continuing to work as &#8220;Mini<br \/>\nAnganwadi Worker&#8221; and she continues to serve till even today.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. An individual can challenge the selection process on grounds of mala<br \/>\nfide or other patent irregularities committed in the selection process.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that the judicial<br \/>\nreview of an administrative action will be justified in case of mala fide or<br \/>\nprocedural irregularities.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. By and large, it is not the function of a Court of law sitting in writ<br \/>\njurisdiction to convert itself into a Court of appeal over the decisions of the<br \/>\nselection committee.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21. In the instant case on hand, it is not explained to the satisfaction<br \/>\nof this Court on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 as to why the petitioner has<br \/>\nnot been given preference in the matter of selection for the post of &#8220;Anganwadi<br \/>\nWorker&#8221; when she comes under the category of Destitute widow.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22.  Inasmuch as the guidelines issued in letter No.355\/S.W.7(1)\/2008-2<br \/>\ndated 20\/3\/2008 of the first respondent\/Special Commissioner and Secretary to<br \/>\nGovernment, Social Welfare &amp; NMP (S.W.7) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9 has<br \/>\nnot been borne in mind or taken into consideration by the Selection Committee or<br \/>\neven by the second Respondent\/District Collector, Ramanathapuram at the time of<br \/>\nissuance of impugned order dated 11\/10\/2008, this Court is of the considered<br \/>\nview that the petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment of &#8220;Anganwadi<br \/>\nWorker&#8221; in Ramanathapuram District, in an existing vacancy or in a vacancy<br \/>\nlikely to arise in the near future by the appropriate authorities concerned<br \/>\nincluding the second Respondent\/District Collector by adhering to the guidelines<br \/>\nissued in the aforesaid letter of the Government dated 20\/3\/2008 in true letter<br \/>\nand spirit and this Court issues this direction on the basis of Fair play,<br \/>\nEquity, Good conscience and even as a matter of prudence and this exercise is to<br \/>\nbe carried out by the authorities concerned within a period eight weeks from the<br \/>\ndate of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the authorities concerned<br \/>\nincluding the second respondent\/District Collector are to act dispassionately<br \/>\nuninfluenced and untrammelled by any of the observations made by this Court in<br \/>\nthis writ petition to prevent an aberration of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t23.  With the above observation and directions, this  writ petition  is<br \/>\ndisposed of.  No costs.  Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is<br \/>\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n<p>mvs.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Special Commissioner<br \/>\n      and Secretary to Government<br \/>\n    Social Welfare &amp; N.N.P<br \/>\n      (S.W.7) Department, Secretariat,  Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The District Collector,Ramanathapuram District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The District Program Officer<br \/>\n    Social Welfare and Nutritious<br \/>\n      Meal Program<br \/>\n    Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The District Child Development<br \/>\n      Project Officer, Ramanathapuram.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court V. Lakshmi vs The Special Commissioner on 11 January, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11\/01\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD) No. 9685 of 2008 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2008 V. Lakshmi &#8230; Petitioner Vs. 1. The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government Social Welfare &amp; [&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-59915","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>V. Lakshmi vs The Special Commissioner on 11 January, 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\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V. Lakshmi vs The Special Commissioner on 11 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-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=\"2011-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-17T21:52:37+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\\\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V. Lakshmi vs The Special Commissioner on 11 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-17T21:52:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1783,\"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\\\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011\",\"name\":\"V. Lakshmi vs The Special Commissioner on 11 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-17T21:52:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V. Lakshmi vs The Special Commissioner on 11 January, 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:\\\/\\\/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. Lakshmi vs The Special Commissioner on 11 January, 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\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V. Lakshmi vs The Special Commissioner on 11 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-17T21:52:37+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\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V. Lakshmi vs The Special Commissioner on 11 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-17T21:52:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011"},"wordCount":1783,"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\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011","name":"V. Lakshmi vs The Special Commissioner on 11 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-17T21:52:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-lakshmi-vs-the-special-commissioner-on-11-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V. Lakshmi vs The Special Commissioner on 11 January, 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:\/\/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\/59915","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=59915"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59915\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59915"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59915"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59915"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}