{"id":64187,"date":"2011-10-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011"},"modified":"2017-07-12T00:49:27","modified_gmt":"2017-07-11T19:19:27","slug":"a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"A.Thangaraju vs The Secretary To Government on 12 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.Thangaraju vs The Secretary To Government on 12 October, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 12\/10\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.255 of 2010\nW.P.(MD)No.189 of 2010\nW.P.(MD)No.1394 of 2010\nW.P.(MD)No.12918 of 2009\nW.P.(MD)No.12919 of 2009\nW.P.(MD)No.13405 of 2009\nand\nW.P.(MD)No.13757 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.4\/2010, 2\/2010, 1,2,3\/2010, 1\/2010, 2\/2009, 1\/2010, 2\/2009, 2\/2010,\n3\/2009, and 3\/2009\n\nW.P.(MD)No.255\/2010:\n\n1.A.Thangaraju\n2.C.Shanmugam\n3.P.Paramasivam\t\t\t\t... Petitioners\n\nvs.\n\n1.The Secretary to Government,\n   Revenue Department,\n   Secretariat,\n   Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.The Principal Secretary &amp; Commissioner\n   of Revenue Administration,\n   Ezhilagam, Chepauk,\n   Chennai-600 005.\n\n3.The District Collector,\n   Tiruchirappalli District,\n   Tiruchirappalli.\n\n4.M.Baladhandayudham\n  [R-4 impleaded as per order of this Court\n   23.03.2010 made in M.P.(MD)No.5\/2010]\n\n5.P.Ravindran\n6.N.Neelavathi\n7.P.Ashok Kumar\n8.D.Chandrasekaran\n9.S.Christi\n10.P.S.Pangajavalli\n11.P.Pushpam\n12.P.Veeramani\n13.T.Gopal\n14.M.Mohanasundaram\n15.N.Subramaniyan\n16.N.Janaki\n17.S.Soundaramani\n18.A.Chinnadurai\n19.M.P.Mathivanan\n20.M.Manoharan\n21.H.Kalyani\n22.T.Muthulakshmi\n23.R.Shanmugaraja\n24.L.Vijayalakshmi\n25.V.Saratha Rukumani\n26.M.Periyasamy\n27.M.Balasubramanian\n28.S.Sarathiganesan\n29.A.Jeyanthi\n30.J.Balaji\n31.A.Jeenatha Banu\n32.S.Jeyanthi\n33.T.Elangovan\n34.S.Periyasamy\n35.K.Malligaisundaram\n36.V.Savithri\n37.P.Srirangan\n38.R.Mathivanan\n39.R.Leelavathi\n40.S.Manoharan\n41.T.S.Badrinath\n42.M.Kadar Moideen\n43.R.Gunasellan\n44.R.Kalavathi\n45.A.Metilda\n46.A.R.A.Jeyaraj\n47.R.Umapathi\n48.R.Naganathan\n49.V.Rengarajan\n50.A.Kulathur Pandiyan\n\n\n51.S.Ubhaharam\n  [R-5 to R-51 impleaded as per order of\n   this Court dated 20.07.2010 made in\n   M.P.(MD)No.6 of 2010]\t\t... Respondents\n\n\nW.P.(MD)No.189\/2010:\n\nR.Selvaraju\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.The Secretary to Government,\n   Revenue Department,\n   Secretariat,\n   Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.The Principal Secretary &amp; Commissioner\n   of Revenue Administration,\n   Ezhilagam, Chepauk,\n   Chennai-600 005.\n\n3.The District Collector,\n   Tiruchirappalli District,\n   Tiruchirappalli.\n\n\n\n4.M.Baladhandayutham\n   [R-4 impleaded as per order of this\n    Court dated 19.04.2010 made in\n    M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2010]\n\n5.T.Elangovan\n6.S.Periyasamy\n7.K.Malligaisundaram\n8.V.Savithri\n9.P.Srirangam\n10.R.Mathivanan\n11.R.Leelavathi\n12.S.Manoharan\n13.T.S.Badrinath\n14.M.Kadar Moideen\n15.R.Gunaseelan\n16.R.Kalavathi\n17.A.Metilda\n18.A.R.A.Jeyaraj\n19.R.Umapathi\n20.R.Naganathan\n21.V.Rengarajan\n22.A.Kulathur Pandiyan\n23.S.Ubhaharam\n24.P.Selvam\n25.S.Subramanian\n26.R.Sudamani\n\n27.R.Radha Krishnan\n28.M.Srinivasan\n29.K.Kaliyamoorthy\n30.R.Jeyabarathi\n31.N.Vasuki\n32.P.L.Shanmugadurai\n33.S.Arumugam\n34.A.Malarkodi\n35.M.Veeramani\n36.K.Sulochana\n   [R-5 to R-36 impleaded as per order of\n    this Court dated 13.07.2010 made in\n    M.P.(MD)No.4 of 2010]\t\t... Respondents\n\nW.P.(MD)No.1394\/2010:\nK.Muthusamy\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.The Secretary to Government,\n   Revenue Department,\n   Secretariat,\n   Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.The Principal Secretary &amp; Commissioner\n   of Revenue Administration,\n   Ezhilagam, Chepauk,\n   Chennai-600 005.\n\n3.The District Collector,\n   Tiruchirappalli District,\n   Tiruchirappalli.\n\n4.C.Nallappa Udayar\n5.William Sil Vester Louisraj\n6.V.Shanthi\n7.T.Malar\n8.M.Karunakaran\n9.R.Sridar\n10.S.Sathya Bala Gangadaran\n11.P.Ravi\n12.M.Sumathi\n13.R.Thangavel\n14.G.Shanthi\n15.V.Manoharan\n16.P.Rajendran\n17.S.Balasubramanian\n   [R-4 to R-17 impleaded as per order of this Court\n   dated 20.07.2010 made in M.P.(MD)No.4 of 2010]\n\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\nW.P.(MD)No.12918\/2009:\n\nA.Rajagopalan\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\nThe District Collector,\nTiruchirappalli District,\nTiruchirappalli.\t\t\t... Respondent\n\nW.P.(MD)No.12919\/2009:\n\nA.Sivagami\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\nThe District Collector,\nTirunelveli District,\nTirunelveli.\t\t\t\t... Respondent\n\nW.P.(MD)No.13405\/2009:\n\n1.C.Bhavani\n2.A.Sivasubramania Pillai\n3.T.Manjula\n4.C.Stella Gnanamani Premeela\n5.S.Kamalakannan\t\t\t... Petitioners\n\nvs.\n1.The District Collector,\n   Trichirappalli District,\n   Trichirappalli.\n\n2.S.John\n3.P.Gnanavel\n4.R.Sri Mohana\n5.G.R.Rajasekaran\n6.R.Ganesan\n7.S.Sivasankaran\n8.A.Selvamathi\n9.T.Valarmathi\n10.J.Shornambi Beaula\n11.K.Muthukumareshwarai\n12.K.Nagarathinam\n13.T.Johnsiponnu\n14.V.Meenal\n15.M.Natarajan\n16.S.V.Sirajudeen\n17.A.Shobha\n18.R.Rengarajan\n19.A.Akbarali\n20.T.Nirmala\n21.S.R.Srinivasan\n22.S.Hendrysamidurai\n23.S.Sivakamasundari\n24.N.Jeyakumar\n25.S.Kasthurirengan\n26.C.Deiveegan\n\n\n\n\n27.P.Sendhamarai\n    [R-2 to R-27 impleaded as per order of\n     this Court dated 20.07.2010 made in\n     M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2010]\t\t... Respondents\n\nW.P.(MD)No.13757\/2009:\n\n1.A.Rajagopalan\n2.K.Mathialagan\n3.M.Ravichandran\t\t\t... Petitioners\n\nvs.\n\n1.The Secretary to Government,\n   Revenue Department,\n   Secretariat,\n   Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.The Principal Secretary &amp; Commissioner\n   of Revenue Administration,\n   Ezhilagam, Chepauk,\n   Chennai-600 005.\n\n3.The District Collector,\n   Tiruchirappalli District,\n   Tiruchirappalli.\n\n\n4.The District Collector,\n   Tirunelveli District,\n   Tirunelveli.\n\n5.The District Collector,\n   Tuticorin District,\n   Tuticorin. \t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nPRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.255\/2010\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of\nthe Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified\nMandamus, to call for the records relating to the third respondent\nR.C.A.2\/16892-2009, dated 02.12.2009 regarding re-drawal of the list of Deputy\nTahsildars of the year 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and quash the same and\ndirect the third respondent to retain the old approved lists till the Revenue\nSubordinate Service Rules are suitably amended by the Government.\n\nPRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.189\/2010\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of\nthe Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to\ncall for the records relating to the third respondent  R.C.A.2\/16892-2009, dated\n02.12.2009 regarding re-drawal of the list of Deputy Tahsildars of the year\n2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 and quash the same.\n\nPRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.1394\/2010\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of\nthe Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified\nMandamus,  to call for the records relating to the third respondent\nR.C.A.2\/16892-2009, dated 02.12.2009 regarding re-drawal of the list of Deputy\nTahsildars of the year 2008 and quash the same and direct the third respondent\nto retain the old approved list till the Revenue Subordinate Service Rules are\nsuitably amended by the Government.\n\nPRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.12918\/2009\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of\nthe Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified\nMandamus,  to call for the records of the respondent relating to R.C.A.2\/16892-\n2009, dated 02.12.2009 and quash the same so far it relates to the petitioner in\nSerial No.9 and consequently, direct the respondent to retain the petitioner's\nname in the original place in the list of Deputy Tahsildars of the year 2001\nwithin a specified time frame.\n\nPRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.12919\/2009\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of\nthe Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified\nMandamus,  to call for the records of the respondent relating to A-6\/Pdl-\n30\/2006\/A-6\/57490 of 2009, dated 30.11.2009 and quash the same so far it relates\nto the petitioner in Serial No.23 and consequently, direct the respondent to\nretain the petitioner's name in the original place in the list of Deputy\nTahsildars of the year 2005 within a specified time frame.\n\nPRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.13405\/2009\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of\nthe Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified\nMandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent relating to\nR.C.A.2\/16892-2009, dated 02.12.2009 in the revision of Deputy Tahsildars list\nof the year 2006 and 2007 and quash the same and consequently, direct the\nrespondent to redraw the list strictly in accordance with the orders dated\n08.04.2009 of the Supreme Court and in accordance with the principles of carried\nover vacancy as stipulated in proviso to Rule 22-d of the Tamil Nadu State and\nSubordinate Service Rules within a specified time frame.\n\nPRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.13757\/2009\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of\nthe Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified\nMandamus, to call for the records relating to the first respondent letter\n(MS)No.305, Revenue Department, dated 07.08.2009 and to the second respondent in\nhis letter No.Ser.3(3)\/47368\/2006, dated 26.08.2009 and quash the same and\nconsequently, direct the first and second respondents to amend the Rule 5(g) of\nthe Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules as per the orders dated\n08.04.2009 of the Supreme Court and issue specific instructions regarding the\nplacement of the Directly Recruited Assistants in the approved list of Deputy\nTahsildars with prospective effect within a specified time frame.\n\nW.P.(MD)No.255\/2010:\n!For Petitioners\t... Mr.S.Visvalingam\n^For Respondents 1to3\t... Mr.M.Govindan\n\t\t\t    Special Government Pleader\nFor Respondent No.4\t... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan\nFor Respondents 5to51\t... No Appearance\nW.P.(MD)No.189\/2010\nFor Petitioner\t\t...  Mr.S.Visvalingam\nFor Respondents 1to3\t... Mr.M.Govindan\n\t\t\t    Special Government Pleader\nFor Respondent No.4\t... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan\nFor Respondents 5to36\t... No Appearance\nW.P.(MD)No.1394\/2010\nFor Petitioner\t\t... Mr.S.Visvalingam\nFor Respondents 1to3\t... Mr.M.Govindan\n\t\t\t    Special Government Pleader\nFor Respondents 4to17\t... No Appearance\nW.P.(MD)Nos.12918&amp; 12919\/2009:\nFor Petitioners\t\t... Mr.S.Visvalingam\nFor Respondent\t\t... Mr.M.Govindan\n\t\t\t    Special Government Pleader\nW.P.(MD)No.13405\/2009\nFor Petitioners\t\t... Mr.S.Visvalingam\nFor Respondent No.1\t... Mr.M.Govindan\n\t\t\t    Special Government Pleader\nFor Respondent No.19\t... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan\nFor Respondents 2to18 &amp;\n20 to 27\t\t... No Appearance\t\nW.P.(MD)No.13757\/2009\nFor Petitioners\t\t... Mr.S.Visvalingam\nFor Respondents\t\t... Mr.M.Govindan\n\t\t\t    Special Government Pleader\n\n\t\t\t\t               ******\n<\/pre>\n<p>:COMMON ORDER<br \/>\n*******<\/p>\n<p>\t\tHeard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. In W.P.(MD)Nos.12918, 12919 of 2009, 189, 255 and 1394 of  2010,<br \/>\nthe prayer is more or less identical. The petitioners, who are direct recruit to<br \/>\nthe post of Assistants in Revenue Department, seek for a restraint order against<br \/>\nthe District Collector from re-drawing the panel for various years starting from<br \/>\n1996 and seek for a further direction to the Collector to retain the old<br \/>\napproved  list till the time frame fixed by this Court. They also seek for<br \/>\nquashing of the fresh panel prepared by the District Collector.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. In W.P.(MD)No.13757 of 2009, the prayer of the petitioners is for<br \/>\nsetting aside the orders of the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department,<br \/>\nSecretariat, Chennai and the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue<br \/>\nAdministration, Chennai, and after setting aside the same, seek for amendment of<br \/>\nRule 5(g) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, as per the order<br \/>\nof the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. In W.P.(MD)No.13405 of 2009, the prayer is for setting aside the<br \/>\npanel drawn by the District Collector and revising the earlier panel of Deputy<br \/>\nTahsildar and for a further direction to strictly implement the judgment of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court, in accordance with the principles of carried over vacancies.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. The subject matter of the present Writ Petitions is squarely<br \/>\ncovered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.3481, 2785 of 2010,<br \/>\netc., batch, dated 11.10.2011. However, Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioners contended that in the absence of the relevant service rules<br \/>\nbeing amended, the State should not give effect to the order passed by the<br \/>\nSupreme Court and secondly, the judgment of the Supreme Court should be made<br \/>\napplicable prospectively and not retrospectively and in the light of the<br \/>\napproved panels made already, there is a vested right created in favour of the<br \/>\npetitioners. Therefore, there is no question of taking advantage of the judgment<br \/>\nof the Supreme Court to re-draw the panels, thereby affecting the interest of<br \/>\nthe petitioners, after so many years.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. For the purpose of deciding the contention raised, one must look<br \/>\ninto the judgment of the Supreme Court, which arose out of the interpretation of<br \/>\nRule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. The said judgment<br \/>\nhas been reported in  2009(5) SCC 625 with the caption &#8220;M.Rathinaswami v. State<br \/>\nof T.N.&#8221;.  In that case, while upholding the right of the State Government in<br \/>\nmaking a distinction, which is in the same cadre of Assistant, based upon<br \/>\neducational qualification, for further promotion and holding in such cases, even<br \/>\nthough persons may be found in the same category, there will not be any<br \/>\ndiscrimination and any distinction based upon academic qualification for the<br \/>\nhigher posts is valid. But, at the same time, the Supreme Court held that even<br \/>\namong the rank promotees, if there are graduates (it was alleged before the<br \/>\nSupreme Court there were also many post graduates), in such cases, the promotee<br \/>\ngraduates also stand on par with direct recruit assistants and, therefore, the<br \/>\nrule, as it stands, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16,<br \/>\ninsofar as it excludes the graduate promotees from being considered for higher<br \/>\nposts. The higher post being the post of Deputy Tahsildar, coming under the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service, the qualified Assistants are transferred<br \/>\nand promoted and posted as Deputy Tahsildar. The Supreme Court, instead of<br \/>\ndirecting the State Government to amend the rules, held, in the exercise of its<br \/>\npower under Article 142, that by reading down the rule, it can be made<br \/>\nconsistent with Articles 14 and 16 and, therefore, held that the graduate<br \/>\npromotees are also eligible to be treated on par with direct recruit assistants<br \/>\nfor being promoted to the next higher cadre. The said direction is binding on<br \/>\nthe State Government and it is unnecessary for the State Government to make any<br \/>\nformal amendment, as under Article 142, the State Government is bound to give<br \/>\neffect to the judgment, order or decree passed by the Supreme Court and it does<br \/>\nnot require any formal order to be passed and, therefore, the prayer of the<br \/>\npetitioners in some of the Writ Petitions that there must be a direction to<br \/>\namend the rule of Revenue Subordinate Service Rules is unnecessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. Insofar as the submission that the respondents are not carrying<br \/>\nout the order of Supreme Court and there is nothing in the order of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt to recast the old panels is concerned, the counsel, in effect, submits<br \/>\nthat the judgment of the Supreme Court read to mean that they are prospective.<br \/>\nIt must be noted that the doctrine of prospective overruling will apply only to<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court, in view of the special power conferred under Article 142 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution and unless and until the Supreme Court, in its judgment,<br \/>\nexpresses its right to make a particular judgment applicable prospectively, all<br \/>\njudgments are declaratory. Once the law is declared, it must be understood, that<br \/>\nwas the law at all times and this Court cannot reinterpret the Supreme Court to<br \/>\nmean that the judgment is prospective.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. Such a power does not exist for this Court under Article 226 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution of India and a reading of  M.Rathinaswami&#8217;s case (cited supra)<br \/>\nwould clearly show that but for the Supreme Court reading down the rule to bring<br \/>\nit consistent with the principles laid down under Articles 14 and 16, the rule<br \/>\nwould have become unconstitutional and all the panels drawn on the basis of the<br \/>\nunconstitutional rule would have become automatically invalid. Therefore, the<br \/>\npetitioners must thank that their position for getting further promotion is not<br \/>\ndisturbed by the order of the Supreme Court. But, at the same time, merely<br \/>\nbecause their names were included earlier in the panel on that basis, otherwise,<br \/>\nthe unconstitutional rule can be implemented by orders passed by this Court.<br \/>\nTherefore, the submission made that a direction should be issued to the District<br \/>\nCollector to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court is unnecessary and the<br \/>\nimpugned panel itself has been prepared only pursuant to the directions issued<br \/>\nby the Supreme  Court, which direction is bound to be obeyed by all authorities<br \/>\nincluding the District Collector.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petitions seeking for a<br \/>\ndirection to the authority to strictly implement the orders is unnecessary and<br \/>\nit has been done by the authorities.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. Insofar as the other submission that there is a vested interest<br \/>\nin favour of persons whose names were included in the panel is concerned, it<br \/>\nmust be noted that mere inclusion in the panel or found in the select list<br \/>\nwithout there being any further orders will not confer any right on the part of<br \/>\nthe petitioners. The Supreme Court, vide its judgment in S.S.Balu v. State of<br \/>\nKerala  reported in 2009(2) SCC 479, has held that mere inclusion in the rank<br \/>\nlist no right of appointment accrues and the Government is free to fill up or<br \/>\nnot to fill up such posts and in such circumstances, no Writ in the nature of<br \/>\nMandamus can be issued by the High Court. In the present case, the fact that the<br \/>\nnames of some of the petitioners were found in the earlier panel does not give<br \/>\nthem any vested right to continue in the panel, especially when the respondent<br \/>\nauthorities were bound to re-cast the panel, to give effect to the judgment of<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11. In the said circumstances, there is no case made out to<br \/>\nentertain anyone of the Writ Petitions and hence, all the Writ Petitions are<br \/>\ndismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>SML<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n   Revenue Department,<br \/>\n   Secretariat,<br \/>\n   Chennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Principal Secretary &amp; Commissioner<br \/>\n   of Revenue Administration,<br \/>\n   Ezhilagam, Chepauk,<br \/>\n   Chennai-600 005.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The District Collector,<br \/>\n   Tiruchirappalli District,<br \/>\n   Tiruchirappalli.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The District Collector,<br \/>\n   Tirunelveli District,<br \/>\n   Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.The District Collector,<br \/>\n   Tuticorin District,<br \/>\n   Tuticorin.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A.Thangaraju vs The Secretary To Government on 12 October, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12\/10\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.255 of 2010 W.P.(MD)No.189 of 2010 W.P.(MD)No.1394 of 2010 W.P.(MD)No.12918 of 2009 W.P.(MD)No.12919 of 2009 W.P.(MD)No.13405 of 2009 and W.P.(MD)No.13757 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.4\/2010, 2\/2010, 1,2,3\/2010, 1\/2010, [&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-64187","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>A.Thangaraju vs The Secretary To Government on 12 October, 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\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Thangaraju vs The Secretary To Government on 12 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-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=\"2011-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-11T19:19:27+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Thangaraju vs The Secretary To Government on 12 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-11T19:19:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1317,\"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\\\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011\",\"name\":\"A.Thangaraju vs The Secretary To Government on 12 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-11T19:19:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Thangaraju vs The Secretary To Government on 12 October, 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":"A.Thangaraju vs The Secretary To Government on 12 October, 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\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Thangaraju vs The Secretary To Government on 12 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-11T19:19:27+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Thangaraju vs The Secretary To Government on 12 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-11T19:19:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011"},"wordCount":1317,"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\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011","name":"A.Thangaraju vs The Secretary To Government on 12 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-11T19:19:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-thangaraju-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-12-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Thangaraju vs The Secretary To Government on 12 October, 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\/64187","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=64187"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64187\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}