{"id":60708,"date":"2005-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005"},"modified":"2017-05-04T07:59:37","modified_gmt":"2017-05-04T02:29:37","slug":"r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005","title":{"rendered":"R. Chandrasekaran vs The Director Of on 22 February, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R. Chandrasekaran vs The Director Of on 22 February, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 22\/02\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM            \nAND  \nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN           \n\nWRIT PETITION NO.34347 of 2002    \n\n\nR. Chandrasekaran                                      ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Director of\n   Employment &amp; Training \n   Chepauk \n   Chennai 600 005.\n\n2. The Registrar\n   Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal\n   City Civil Court Campus\n   High Court Buildings\n   Chennai 600 104.                       ..  Respondents\n\n                Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of\nIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner :  Mr.K.  Raja for\n                Mrs.Muthumani Doraisamy\n\nFor respondent-1       :  Mr.E.  Sampath Kumar, G.A.\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)<br \/>\n                Writ  Petition is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal dated 28.11.2001 made in O.A.No.510 of 2001 in and  by<br \/>\nwhich  the tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner<br \/>\nherein.  The brief facts which are required for the disposal of the above writ<br \/>\npetition alone are stated hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n<p>                According to the petitioner, he belongs to the Backward  Class<br \/>\ncommunity  and  he  completed  SSLC  in  the  year 1982 and also passed Higher<br \/>\nSecondary Course.  He  passed  the  course  of  Machinist  in  the  Government<br \/>\nIndustrial  Training  Institute,  Erode and to that effect, Nationalised Trade<br \/>\nCertificate was issued in the year 1986.  He  also  completed  the  Vocational<br \/>\nTraining  held  in  October  1987  and to that effect, National Apprenticeship<br \/>\nCertificate was issued in the year 1987.  Immediately, he enrolled his name in<br \/>\nthe Employment Exchange, Erode in the year 1986.    He  gained  experience  as<br \/>\nMachinist  in  the  Department  of Mechanical Engineering in Kongu Engineering<br \/>\nCollege, Perundurai from 7.8.1 989 and thus, became qualified to be  appointed<br \/>\nas Junior  Training  Officer  (Machinist).   Since he was having the requisite<br \/>\nqualification, he was provisionally selected for the post of  Junior  Training<br \/>\nOfficer (Machinist).    After his selection, the first respondent directed him<br \/>\nto produce all the documents on 5.1.2001, which were produced for verification<br \/>\nbefore the Committee on 5.1.2001.  The first respondent,  instead  of  issuing<br \/>\nthe   formal   order   confirming   the   earlier   selection,  on  extraneous<br \/>\nconsideration, had taken steps to appoint another person since his date of<br \/>\nbirth was 15.2.1966 and he had completed the age of 35 years on  14.02  .2001.<br \/>\nAccording  to the petitioner, this was in view of the fact that the petitioner<br \/>\nwas getting age-barred very  soon,  though  his  name  was  sponsored  by  the<br \/>\nEmployment Exchange  and  he  was provisionally selected.  But, apart from the<br \/>\npetitioner, the other persons were of lesser age having lesser experience  and<br \/>\nthey  were having more opportunities, whereas for the petitioner, this was the<br \/>\nlast chance.  The action of the first respondent is contrary to the Government<br \/>\nOrder in G.O.  Ms.  No.191, Rural Development Department  dated  7.9.1998  and<br \/>\nhaving  no other remedy, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.<br \/>\nNo.510 of 2001.  The Tribunal, without considering his claim with reference to<br \/>\nthe above referred Government Order, has erroneously rejected his application.<br \/>\nHence the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner  as  well  as<br \/>\nlearned government advocate for the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  After taking us through the various selection process, the<br \/>\nGovernment  Orders  and  the  order  of  the Tribunal, learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner would submit that the second respondent has committed an  error  in<br \/>\nnot considering the  case of the petitioner in the light of G.O.  Ms.  No.191,<br \/>\nRural Development Department dated 7.9.1998.  He further  contended  that  the<br \/>\npetitioner herein neither<br \/>\nsuppressed any  material  fact  nor  misled  the authorities.  Inasmuch as the<br \/>\nDistrict Employment Officer, Erode did not say that the petitioner committed a<br \/>\nmistake, while  sponsoring  his  name,  the  order  of  the  first  respondent<br \/>\ncancelling  his  initial appointment cannot be sustained, but the same was not<br \/>\nconsidered by the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  government  advocate<br \/>\nappearing  for the first respondent would submit that in the light of the fact<br \/>\nthat as per  the  registration,  the  petitioner  is  junior  to  others,  who<br \/>\nregistered  prior  to  his  registration,  and  the  first respondent is fully<br \/>\njustified in cancelling his appointment and the same  was  rightly  considered<br \/>\nand rejected by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   We  have  considered the relevant materials and the rival<br \/>\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  The only point for consideration in this writ petition  is<br \/>\nwhether   the   first  respondent  is  justified  in  cancelling  the  initial<br \/>\nappointment of the petitioner and whether the order of the  second  respondent<br \/>\nTribunal dismissing his original application is sustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   It  is  not in dispute that the petitioner has passed the<br \/>\ncourse of Machinist in the Government Industrial Training Institute  at  Erode<br \/>\nand he was awarded with Nationalised Trade Certificate in 1986.  Subsequently,<br \/>\nhe  completed  the  Vocational  Training held in October 1987 and awarded with<br \/>\nNational Apprenticeship Certificate in the year 1987 .  It is his  claim  that<br \/>\nhe  gained  more  than  11  years experience as Machinist in the Department of<br \/>\nMechanical Engineering in Kongu Engineering College, Perundurai from 7.8.1989.<br \/>\nHe registered his name with the Employment Exchange, Erode in  the  year  1986<br \/>\nwith the  Nationalised  Trade  Certificate.    It  is  further  seen  that the<br \/>\npetitioner was provisionally selected by the first respondent and was directed<br \/>\nto produce all original documents on 5.1.2001.  Accordingly, he  appeared  and<br \/>\nproduced all  the certificates on 5.1.2001.  However, he has not been favoured<br \/>\nwith the posting order as he would  be  completing  35  years  of  age  as  on<br \/>\n14.2.2001,  though  his  name  was  sponsored  by  the Employment Exchange and<br \/>\nprovisionally selected.  The grievance of the petitioner  is  that  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent has committed  an  error in not considering G.O.  Ms.  No.191 dated<br \/>\n7.9.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that  placing<br \/>\nreliance on the information furnished by the first respondent in the form of a<br \/>\nreply  affidavit, after holding that the registration of the petitioner in the<br \/>\nOffice of the Employment Exchange is subsequent to  other  qualified  persons,<br \/>\nthe Tribunal dismissed his application and rejected his claim.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      In this regard,  it  is relevant to refer to G.O.  Ms.  No.191<br \/>\nRural Development Department dated 7.9.1998.  Among the other clauses,  Clause<br \/>\n3 is relevant, which reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p>(Vernacular portion deleted)<\/p>\n<p>It is relevant to note that as per the assertion made by  the  petitioner,  he<br \/>\nwas about  to  complete  the  age  of  35  years  as  on  14.2.2001.   In such<br \/>\ncircumstances, as per the above referred Government Order, the  petitioner  is<br \/>\nentitled to be given preference for appointment to the post of Junior Training<br \/>\nOfficer (Machinist).  Though he was provisionally selected, as rightly pointed<br \/>\nout  by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent committed<br \/>\nan error in not confirming  the  provisional  order  without  considering  the<br \/>\ngovernment  order referred to above, particularly taking note of the fact that<br \/>\nafter completion of the age of 35 years, he cannot compete for the said  post.<br \/>\nWe  are  satisfied  that  both  the  first  respondent  as  well as the second<br \/>\nrespondent Tribunal failed to comply with G.O.  Ms.  No.191 Rural  Development<br \/>\nDepartment dated 7.9.1998.  On this ground, the order of the second respondent<br \/>\nmade in O.A.  No.510 of 2001 dated 28.11.2001 has to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.     Learned  counsel  for the petitioner has brought to our notice<br \/>\nthat even at the time of ordering Rule Nisi in the writ petition on  5.9.2002,<br \/>\nin W.P.M.P.   No.51286 of 2002, this Court directed the government to keep one<br \/>\npost vacant.  In the light of the said direction, we are  satisfied  that  the<br \/>\npetitioner is entitled to the consequential relief of a mandamus.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.     Accordingly, while quashing the order of the second respondent<br \/>\ndated  28.11.2001  made  in  O.A.No.510  of 2001, a direction is issued to the<br \/>\nfirst respondent to consider the claim of  the  petitioner  herein  as  Junior<br \/>\nTraining  Officer  (Machinist) in any one of the available vacancies at Erode,<br \/>\npursuant  to  the  order  of  selection  made  in  RC.TP2\/65  230\/2000   dated<br \/>\n23.12.2000,  within  a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy<br \/>\nof this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.     The writ petition is allowed to the  extent  indicated  above.<br \/>\nNo costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>gs<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Director of<br \/>\nEmployment &amp; Training<br \/>\nChepauk<br \/>\nChennai 600 005.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Registrar<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal<br \/>\nCity Civil Court Campus<br \/>\nHigh Court Buildings<br \/>\nChennai 600 104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court R. Chandrasekaran vs The Director Of on 22 February, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22\/02\/2005 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN WRIT PETITION NO.34347 of 2002 R. Chandrasekaran .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Director of Employment &amp; Training Chepauk Chennai 600 [&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-60708","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>R. Chandrasekaran vs The Director Of on 22 February, 2005 - 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\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. Chandrasekaran vs The Director Of on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-04T02:29:37+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. Chandrasekaran vs The Director Of on 22 February, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-04T02:29:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1239,\"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\\\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005\",\"name\":\"R. Chandrasekaran vs The Director Of on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-04T02:29:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. Chandrasekaran vs The Director Of on 22 February, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"R. Chandrasekaran vs The Director Of on 22 February, 2005 - 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\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. Chandrasekaran vs The Director Of on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-04T02:29:37+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. Chandrasekaran vs The Director Of on 22 February, 2005","datePublished":"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-04T02:29:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005"},"wordCount":1239,"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\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005","name":"R. Chandrasekaran vs The Director Of on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-04T02:29:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-chandrasekaran-vs-the-director-of-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. Chandrasekaran vs The Director Of on 22 February, 2005"}]},{"@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\/60708","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=60708"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60708\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60708"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60708"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60708"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}