{"id":6490,"date":"2009-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009"},"modified":"2014-10-13T06:24:18","modified_gmt":"2014-10-13T00:54:18","slug":"the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Secretary To Government vs Josuva Jebakumar on 10 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Secretary To Government vs Josuva Jebakumar on 10 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 10\/12\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU\n\nW.A.(MD).Nos.446 to 461 of 2009\nand W.A.(MD).No. 224 of 2009\nand M.P.Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,\n2,2,2, 3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3  and 2  of 2009\n\n\n1.The Secretary to Government,\n  Health and Family Welfare Department,\n  Fort.St.George,\n  Chennai.\n\n2.The Director of Public Health and\n  Preventive Medicine, Chennai.\n\n3.The Commissioner,\n  Employment and Training Department,\n  Guindy, Chennai 600 032.\n\t\t\t... Appellants in W.A.(MD).Nos.446 to 461 of 2009\n\t\t\t\nVs\n\n1.Josuva Jebakumar\n\t\t\t... Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.446 of 2009<\/pre>\n
2.A.Anantha Selvi
\n\t\t\t… Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.447 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
3.L.Murugeswari
\n\t\t \t… Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.448 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
4.P.Rajakumar
\n\t\t\t… Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.449 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
5.S.Karthikeyan
\n\t\t\t… Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.450 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
6.K.Rajeswari
\n\t\t \t… Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.451 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
7.S.Lalitha
\n\t\t        … Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.452 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
8.G.Muthamil Selvi
\n\t\t\t… Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.453 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
9.T.Amutha Kalaivani
\n\t\t\t… Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.454 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
11.G.Thirupathy
\n\t\t\t… Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.455 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
12.K.Balaji
\n\t\t\t… Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.456 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
13.S.Balamurugan
\n\t\t\t… Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.457 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
14.D.Meenakshi Ammal
\n\t\t\t… Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.458 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
15.C.Subathra
\n\t\t        … Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.459 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
16.A.Thulasiraman
\n\t\t\t… Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.460 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
17.S.Ashok
\n\t\t\t… Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.461 of 2009<\/p>\n
In W.A.(MD).No.224 of 2009<\/p>\n
1.K.Sundanthira Pandy\n<\/p>\n
2.Prasanna Kumar\t… Impleaded Respondents\/Appellants<\/p>\n
vs<\/p>\n
1.S.Balamurugan<\/p>\n
2.1.The Secretary to Government,
\n  Health and Family Welfare Department,
\n  Fort.St.George,
\n  Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Director of Public Health and
\n  Preventive Medicine, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Commissioner,
\n  Employment and Training Department,
\n  Guindy, Chennai 600 032.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t: Respondents in W.A.(MD).No.224 of 2009<\/p>\n
PRAYER in W.A.(MD).Nos.446 to 461 of 2009<\/p>\n
Writ Appeals are filed under Section
\n15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11.02.2009 made in
\nW.P.(MD).Nos.10442, 10495, 11018 to 11023, 11474 to 11478 and 11411 to 11423 of
\n2008.\n<\/p>\n
PRAYER in W.A.(MD).No.224 of 2009<\/p>\n
Writ Appeal is filed under Section 15 of the
\nLetters Patent against the Order dated 11.02.2009 made in W.P.(MD).No.10495 of
\n2008.<\/p>\n
\n\nIn W.A.(MD).Nos.446 to 461 of 2009\n\n!For Appellants\t                 ... Mr.Ramaswamy\n\t\t\t             Advocate General\n\t\t\t             For Mr.R.Janakiramalu\n\t\t\t             Special Government Pleader\n\n^For Respondents\nIn W.A.(MD).Nos.446 to 448,\n 450, 453, 456 and 458 of 2009 of 2009\n\t\t\t          ... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan\n\n\t\t\n\n\nIn W.A.(MD).No.224 of 2009\n\t\t\nFor Appellants\t\t... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy\nFor Respondents1 to3\t... Mr.Ramaswamy\n\t\t\t    Advocate General\n\t\t\t    For Mr.R.Janakiramalu\n\t\t\t    Special Government Pleader\n\nFor Respondent 4\t...  Mr.Ajmal Khan\n\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tSince common issues are involved in all these Writ Appeals, they were
\nheard together and they are disposed of by means of this Common Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Challenging the common Order of the Writ Court, quashing the Government
\nOrder issued in G.O.Ms.No.335, Health and Family Welfare (EAP 1\/2) Department,
\ndated 15.10.2008, the official respondents in the Writ Petitions have come up
\nwith W.A.(MD)Nos.446 to 461 of 2009. The appellant in W.A.(MD.No.224 of 2009 has
\ngot himself impleaded before the Writ Court in W.P.(MD).No.10495 of 2009.
\nChallenging the very same common Order, he has come up with the said Writ
\nAppeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The Writ Petitioners claim that they have got basic qualification for
\nbeing appointed as Lab Assistants in the Health and Family Welfare Department.
\nAdmittedly, they have registered their names with the local Employment Exchange.
\nDuring the year 1998, there were total number of 413 vacancies, out of which,
\nthe Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, notified 171
\nvacancies to the local Employment Exchange. In response to the said
\nnotification, the Commissioner of Employment and Training Department, Guindy,
\nChennai, sponsored 1292 candidates including the Writ Petitioners in the ratio
\nof 1:5. It was also proposed by the Director of Public Health and Preventive
\nMedicine, Chennai, to fill up the remaining vacancies by absorbing the
\nLaboratory Technicians\/Laboratory Supervisors, who are working in the Revised
\nNational Tuberculosis Control Programme for more than five years and to satisfy
\nthe educational qualification prescribed in the Rules for the post of Laboratory
\nTechnicians Grade III in terms of the above said Government Order.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. According to the Writ Petitioners, the said Government Order impugned
\nin the Writ Petitions, which is an administrative order, cannot override the
\nSpecial Rules for Tamil Nadu Public Health  and Subordinate Service Rules,
\naccording to which, the post of Laboratory Technician Grade III can be filled up
\nonly by way of direct recruitment. It was further contended that because major
\nchunk of the vacancies have been reserved for certain candidates, who are
\nalready in service, as indicated above, the Writ Petitioners, who are fully
\neligible for the said post, are kept out of the purview of  consideration, and
\nthus, there is gross violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. However, it was contended by the official appellants before the Writ
\nCourt that the Government Order impugned in the Writ Petitions was issued in the
\nfollowing circumstances, viz., If candidates are recruited through Employment
\nExchange to fill up these vacancies, junior candidates to these persons now
\nworking in the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (Government
\nProgramme) will get regular employment in Government Service whereas the Seniors
\nwho were appointed through paper advertisement with rich experience in the
\nMedical Institutions could not get absorbed against the regular appointments as
\nmost of them are over aged and many of them are working in the programme for
\nmore than nine years. However, the services of the Laboratory Technicians and
\nLaboratory Supervisors are being utilized in “Varumun Kappom Thittam” Camps and
\nother Public Health Programmes. In those circumstances, the Government decided
\nto accept the recommendations of the State Tuberculosis Officer and Director of
\nPublic Health and Preventive Medicine so as to issue a direction for absorption
\nof these Laboratory Technicians\/Laboratory Supervisors, who are working in the
\nRevised National Tuberculosis Control Programme for more than five years and who
\nare fully qualified.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. It was further contended before the Writ Court that after filling up
\nthe vacancies from out of the qualified service candidates, the remaining
\nvacancies would be filled up by selecting the suitable candidates sponsored
\nthrough the Employment Exchange. It was also contended that there is no
\ndiscrimination, as it is contended by the Writ Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Having considered all the above, by a common Order dated 11.02.2009, a
\nlearned Single Judge of this Court allowed all the Writ Petitions thereby
\nquashing the impugned Government Order. It is the said Order, which is under
\nchallenge in these Writ Appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. It is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
\nthe official appellants that after all, these service candidates were appointed
\nonly by means of proper selection, and therefore, there is neither illegality
\nnor irregularity in giving preference to them to absorb them as against the
\nregular vacancies. This, according to the official appellants, was done under
\nthe Government Order impugned in the Writ Petitions, not only by having regard
\nto the welfare of the service candidates, who are eligible, but also in the
\ninterest of the department and the interest of the public at large.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records
\ncarefully. In our considered opinion, though the object of the Government Order
\nin question is laudable, the procedure adopted by the official appellants is
\nwholly without jurisdiction. It is too well settled, on several occasions, by
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court that administrative\/executive
\norders, administrative\/executive circulars and guidelines cannot override the
\nService Rule issued by the Government in exercise of the power conferred under
\nArticle 309 of the Constitution of India. In the cases on hand, as per the
\nSpecial Rules governing these posts, the appointment can be made only by means
\nof direct recruitment. The said Rule does not speak of any reservation for any
\nservice candidate or any other qualification, like, experience. Indisputably,
\nthe Government Order impugned in the Writ Petitions has not been issued in
\nexercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, but
\ninstead, it is only an executive order and the same cannot override the Service
\nRules. When there is such a conflict between the Government Order and the
\nStatutory Service Rules, there can be no hesitation to declare the said
\nGovernment Order as null and void. Further, allotting a major chunk of vacancies
\nexclusively for the service candidates so as to exclude the participation of the
\nfresh candidates would amount to reservation, which is not permissible under the
\nConstitution, as such reservation would violate Articles 14 and 16(2) of the
\nConstitution of India. In our considered opinion, all the available vacancies
\nshould be  kept open for all eligible candidates to compete, of course subject
\nto the reservation, like reservation for SC\/ST, MBC, BC etc., which have got the
\nsanction of the Constitution. For all these reasons, we are of the considered
\nview that the impugned Government Order is liable to be quashed. The learned
\nSingle Judge has rightly done so.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer to a Judgment of a
\nFull Bench of this Court in Sivakumari, R. v. Ramanathapuram Mavatta
\nPayirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam<\/a> reported in 2007 (5) CTC 561 [to
\nwhich one of us JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU is a party]. In the said Judgment, after
\nreferring to the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and
\nothers v. N.Hargobal<\/a> reported in 1987 (3) SCC 308, Exercise Superintendent
\nMalkapatnam, Krishna District v. K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao and others<\/a> reported in
\n1996 (6) SCC 216 and lastly in Arun Kumar Nayak v. Union of India and others<\/a>
\nreported in 2006 (8) SCC 111, in paragraph 24, the Full Bench has held as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Therefore, if the recruitment of about four thousand Secondary Grade
\nTeachers to the Government Schools were to be made in accordance with the law
\nlaid down by the Supreme Court, the respondents ought to have followed the
\nfollowing procedure, namely;-\n<\/p>\n
\tA. Notify the Employment Exchange.\n<\/p>\n
\tB. Issue publications in newspapers having wide circulation, inviting
\napplications.\n<\/p>\n
\tC. Display the notification in the notice boards of the respective offices
\nor make announcements in the media”.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. In the case on hand, it is needless to say that the official
\nappellants have to scrupulously follow the above law laid down by the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court and followed by the Full Bench of this Court. But, the impugned
\nGovernment Order is directly in conflict with the above legal dictum, and
\ntherefore, the same cannot withstand the legal scrutiny. However, Mr.T.Lajapathi
\nRoy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.(MD).No.224 of 2009
\nwould place reliance on a recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
\nHarmider Kaur v. UOI reported in 2009 (7) MLJ 1109, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt, in paragraph 18, has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court was correct in its
\nview. We were, however, informed that 800 posts of teachers are lying vacant.
\nMs.Kamini Jaiswal informed that the Administration is ready and willing to fill
\np the said posts on a regular basis. While doing so, we have no doubt in our
\nmind that the cases of the appellants shall also be taken into consideration and
\nthe Administrator may consider the desirability of relaxing the age limit
\nprovided for in the Rules”.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Drawing support from the said Judgment, the learned counsel would
\nsubmit that while making selection, at least, preference may be given to the
\nappellants in W.A.(MD).No.224 of 2009 by the Department over the fresh
\ncandidates, since they have rendered more than five years of continuous service
\nin the department, that too, by having been appointed on merit basis.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. In this regard, we would like to clarify that we have only concurred
\nwith the findings of the learned Single Judge to quash the impugned Government
\nOrder, because the same runs counter to the Service Rules and it grossly
\nviolates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the impugned
\nGovernment Order creates a reservation of certain number of vacancies for the
\ncandidates, who are already in service. But, it cannot be construed that this
\nCourt has expressed any opinion that the candidates, who have been in service,
\nshould not be given any preference.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. It is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the
\nselection was sought to be made on the basis of interview. If that is the case,
\nwhile conducting interview, for assessing merit, the department can evolve its
\nown procedure and guidelines for allotting  marks under the various heads. While
\ndoing so, the Government is at liberty to award marks for previous experience,
\nas the same would be an added qualification for the candidates, who have been
\nalready working. Similarly, for these service candidates, the Government may
\nrelax the age qualification also. We would like to say that by adopting such a
\nprocedure of selection, which is fair, the meritorious candidates should alone
\nbe selected and appointed.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. In view of all the above, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of
\nthe learned Single Judge warranting interference. In the result, all the Writ
\nAppeals fail and the same are, accordingly, dismissed, however, with the
\nclarification as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected
\nMiscellaneous Petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
NB<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Secretary to Government,
\n  Health and Family Welfare Department,
\n  Fort.St.George,
\n  Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Director of Public Health and
\n  Preventive Medicine, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Commissioner,
\n  Employment and Training Department,
\n  Guindy, Chennai 600 032.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Secretary To Government vs Josuva Jebakumar on 10 December, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10\/12\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.A.(MD).Nos.446 to 461 of 2009 and W.A.(MD).No. 224 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2, 2,2,2, 3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3 and 2 of 2009 1.The Secretary to […]<\/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-6490","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Secretary To Government vs Josuva Jebakumar on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Secretary To Government vs Josuva Jebakumar on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-13T00:54:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Secretary To Government vs Josuva Jebakumar on 10 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-13T00:54:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2077,\"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\\\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009\",\"name\":\"The Secretary To Government vs Josuva Jebakumar on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-13T00:54:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Secretary To Government vs Josuva Jebakumar on 10 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"The Secretary To Government vs Josuva Jebakumar on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Secretary To Government vs Josuva Jebakumar on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-13T00:54:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Secretary To Government vs Josuva Jebakumar on 10 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-13T00:54:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009"},"wordCount":2077,"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\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009","name":"The Secretary To Government vs Josuva Jebakumar on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-13T00:54:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-to-government-vs-josuva-jebakumar-on-10-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Secretary To Government vs Josuva Jebakumar on 10 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/6490","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=6490"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6490\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6490"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6490"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6490"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}