{"id":65329,"date":"2004-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004"},"modified":"2015-05-27T23:29:00","modified_gmt":"2015-05-27T17:59:00","slug":"t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"T.S.Chandrasekaran vs The Commissioner on 8 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">T.S.Chandrasekaran vs The Commissioner on 8 October, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 08\/10\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice V.KANAGARAJ\n\nWrit Petition No.9971 of 1998\n\n\nT.S.Chandrasekaran                             ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Commissioner\n   Madurai Corporation\n   Madurai\n\n2. Mr.Chellappa\n   Door No.2, Mela Ponnagaram\n    second street\n   Corporation New Colony\n   Madurai.1.                                   ..  Respondents\n\n\n        Prayer: 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 :  Ms.K.Suguna\n\nFor respondents :  Mr.P.Srinivas for R1\n                For R2 ..  N.A.\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>                This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to<br \/>\nissue  a  Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to<br \/>\nthe  order  of  the  first  respondent  dated   24.06.1998   issued   in   No.<br \/>\nMa.Nee.2\/4924\/98  and  quash  the  same  and to direct the first respondent to<br \/>\npromote the petitioner as  Assistant  Executive  Engineer  with  effects  from<br \/>\n24.06.1998 with all consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   Challenging  the promotion given to the second respondent<br \/>\nherein to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, the petitioner  has  filed<br \/>\nthe  above  writ  petition  submitting  that  in  the year 1965 the petitioner<br \/>\nstarted his career as Overseer in the Madurai Municipality; that in  the  year<br \/>\n1968,  he  was  promoted  as  Supervisor and the said Post was redesignated as<br \/>\nJunior Engineer after the  upgradation  of  Madurai  Municipality  as  Madurai<br \/>\nCorporation  in  the  year  1971,  that  at  that point of time those who were<br \/>\nqualified with degree were designated as Assistant Engineers and those<\/p>\n<p>who were qualified with Diploma were designated as  Junior  Engineer  but  the<br \/>\nnature  of  work was one and the same; that as per the service rules framed in<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.237 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election)  Department<br \/>\ndated  26th  September,  1996,  the  post  of  Assistant  Engineer comes under<br \/>\ncategory I of Grade II of the Tamil  Nadu  Municipal  Corporation  Engineer  &amp;<br \/>\nWater Supply Service Rules 1996; that as per Clause III of the said Rules, the<br \/>\nvacancies  in  the  post  of  Assistant  Executive  Engineer  can be filled by<br \/>\npromotion from the holder  of  the  post  of  Assistant  Engineer  and  Junior<br \/>\nEngineer;  that  as  per  Clause  V  for  filling the vacancies in the post of<br \/>\nAssistant Executive Engineer, the Assistant Engineer and the  Junior  Engineer<br \/>\nshall  be considered as single category as per which the petitioner who joined<br \/>\nin the post of Junior Engineer earlier than the second respondent, should have<br \/>\nbeen promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer,  but  without  considering  the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner&#8217;s  name,  the  second  respondent  has  been  promoted as Assistant<br \/>\nExecutive Engineer which is prima facie illegal and hence, the petitioner  has<br \/>\ncome forward with the above writ petition with a prayer stated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  The first respondent has filed a counter-affidavit denying<br \/>\nthe  contentions raised by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of<br \/>\nthe writ petition; he would  further  submit  that  following  the  guidelines<br \/>\nspecified   in   G.O.Ms.No.237,  Municipal  Administration  and  Water  Supply<br \/>\nDepartment dated 26.09.1996, the  promotions  with  regard  to  the  posts  of<br \/>\nAssistant  Engineer  and  Assistant  Executive Engineer have been given to the<br \/>\nindividuals; that as per the said G.O., the ratio of appointment of  Assistant<br \/>\nEngineer  by  direct  recruitment  and by promotion from the post of Technical<br \/>\nAssistant to the Junior Engineer would be 3:1; that  adhering  to  the  orders<br \/>\ncontained  in  the above said Government Order, the promotions have been given<br \/>\nin proper manner and there are no  illegalities  in  the  said  promotion  and<br \/>\nhence, prays for the dismissal of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  Heard learned counsel appearing for both.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   During  arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of<br \/>\nthe petitioner would submit that the promotion given in the impugned order  is<br \/>\ncontrary  to  statutory  Rules;  that  the  vacancies in the post of Assistant<br \/>\nExecutive Engineer has to be filled up as a single category.  Further, learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the petitioner would show the circular  with  regard  to<br \/>\nseniority  list  wherein,  the  petitioner  is  put  in as No.3 and the second<br \/>\nrespondent herein is put in as  No.6;  that  if  the  order  has  been  passed<br \/>\nfollowing  the  ratio  3:1,  the  petitioner  ought  to  have been promoted as<br \/>\nAssistant Executive Engineer who is in the third place in the seniority  list;<br \/>\nThough  the  petitioner  is  senior  to  second respondent, his claim has been<br \/>\noverruled and his junior alone was promoted.  While considering for  promotion<br \/>\nfor  the  post of Assistant Executive Engineer, it should be treated as single<br \/>\ncategory.  If the single category is followed, the petitioner  ought  to  have<br \/>\nbeen placed as senior.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  On the contrary,  learned  Additional  Government  Pleader<br \/>\nwould  submit  that  after  considering  the  objection made by the petitioner<br \/>\nherein, the petitioner was placed in next for  promotion  but  the  petitioner<br \/>\nretired from service on 31.01.2001 before the vacancy arose.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   In  consideration  of the facts pleaded, having regard to<br \/>\nthe materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner  and  the  learned  counsel  for  the  Corporation as well, with no<br \/>\nrepresentation made on the part of the second respondent,  what  comes  to  be<br \/>\nseen  is  that the petitioner has come forward to file the above writ petition<br \/>\npraying to quash the order of the first respondent dated 24.06.1998 issued  in<br \/>\nNo.Ma.Nee.2\/4924\/98  and  to  direct  the  first  respondent  to  promote  the<br \/>\npetitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer with effects from the date of order<br \/>\nwith all consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.   The  strong  case put up on the part of the petitioner is<br \/>\nthat he joined the services in the year 1965 as Overseer and was  promoted  as<br \/>\nSupervisor  in  1968 which post was re-designated as Junior Engineer after the<br \/>\nupgradation of Madurai Municipality as corporation in 1971, that at that time,<br \/>\nwho were qualified with a degree were designated as  Assistant  Engineers  and<br \/>\nthose  qualified with Diploma were designated as Junior Engineers; that as per<br \/>\nthe service rules framed in G.O.    Ms.No.237,  Municipal  Administration  and<br \/>\nWater  Supply  (Election)  Department  dated 26.09.1996, the post of Assistant<br \/>\nExecutive Engineer can be filled by promotion from the holder of the  post  of<br \/>\nAssistant  Engineer  and Junior Engineer; that as per Clause V for filling the<br \/>\nvacancies, both should be considered as single  category  as  per  which,  the<br \/>\npetitioner  who  joined  the  post  of Junior Engineer earlier than the second<br \/>\nrespondent should have been promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer  but  the<br \/>\nsecond  respondent  has  been  promoted  to the said post which is prima facie<br \/>\nillegal and hence the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  According to the first respondent as  per  the  G.O.,  the<br \/>\nratio  of  appointment  of  Assistant  Engineer  by  direct recruitment and by<br \/>\npromotion from the posts of Technical Assistant and Junior Engineer should  be<br \/>\n3:1; that adhering to the orders contained in the above said Government Order,<br \/>\nthe promotions have been given in proper manner and there were no illegalities<br \/>\nin  the  said  promotions  and  hence would pray for the dismissal of the writ<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  In the above circumstances, since clause 3 and 5  of  the<br \/>\nTamil  Nadu  Municipal Corporation Engineers and Water Supply service Rules, 1<br \/>\n966 are relevant for consideration particularly that of clause V according  to<br \/>\nwhich  the  promotion  has  to  be effected to the post of Assistant Executive<br \/>\nEngineer, and therefore, it is necessary to  extract  Clause  V  of  the  said<br \/>\nRules.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Ratio  between  direct  recruitment of Assistant Engineers and appointment of<br \/>\nJunior Engineers by promotion for the purpose of filling up of  the  vacancies<br \/>\nin  the post of Assistant Executive Engineers, the post of Assistant Engineers<br \/>\nand Junior Engineers shall be considered as a single category.  The  ratio  of<br \/>\nappointment  of Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment and by promotion from<br \/>\nthe post of Technical Assistant to the post of Junior Engineer shall be 3:1&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  Clinging to the first part of this clause to  the  effect<br \/>\nthat  between the direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers and appointment of<br \/>\nJunior Engineers by promotion, for the purpose  of  filling  up  the  post  of<br \/>\nAssistant  Executive  Engineers,  the  post  of Assistant Engineers and Junior<br \/>\nEngineers shall be considered as a single category, the  petitioner  has  come<br \/>\nforward to claim that as per this part of clause V since the petitioner joined<br \/>\nthe post of Junior Engineer earlier than the second respondent, he should have<br \/>\nbeen  promoted  as Assistant Executive Engineer prior to the second respondent<br \/>\nand therefore, the petitioner would come forward to quash the promotion  order<br \/>\nwhich is impugned herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.   On the contrary, it would be very strongly argued on the<br \/>\npart of the first respondent Corporation in a crisp manner  that  as  per  the<br \/>\nabove clause V of the Rules, the ratio of appointment of Assistant Engineer by<br \/>\ndirect  recruitment  and by promotion from the post of Technical Assistants to<br \/>\nthe Junior Engineer would be 3:1, adhering to which the promotions  have  been<br \/>\ngiven effect to and the same is proper and quite legal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.   No  mention  need be necessary that on a bare reading of<br \/>\nthe above clause extracted, it could be understood that though  the  posts  of<br \/>\nAssistant Engineers and Junior Engineers as in the manner aforementioned shall<br \/>\nbe  considered  as  a  single  category,  still in the second part of the said<br \/>\nclause the ratio of appointment of Assistant Engineer  by  direct  recruitment<br \/>\nand  by  promotion  from the post of Technical Assistant to the post of Junior<br \/>\nEngineer shall be 3:1 and the second respondent since being Assistant Engineer<br \/>\nby direct recruitment, according to the ratio, if three of them are  promoted,<br \/>\nfrom  the  category  of the petitioner that is from Technical Assistant to the<br \/>\npost of Junior Engineer for  being  promoted,  the  only  one  would  get  the<br \/>\nopportunity  and  therefore,  in  accordance with the preference of the second<br \/>\nrespondent category, he has been placed before the petitioner and there is  no<br \/>\nwonder in such placements occurring in the matter of promotion to the posts of<br \/>\nAssistant  Executive  Engineer  and  therefore  the  petitioner  cannot  claim<br \/>\npriority over the second respondent in the placements since when three of  the<br \/>\nsecond  respondent&#8217;s  category  would be getting the chance for promotion only<br \/>\none of the category of the petitioner gets the opportunity and  therefore  the<br \/>\nabove  fixation  of  the  ratio  since  being reasonable particularly when the<br \/>\npetitioner is not challenging the said ratio, is dis-entitled to challenge the<br \/>\npriority given to the second respondent in accordance with the ratio and hence<br \/>\nthe following Order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                In result,<\/p>\n<p>                (i) the above writ petition  does  not  merit  acceptance  but<br \/>\nbecomes only liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly;\n<\/p>\n<p>                (ii) the order of the first respondent dated 24.06.1998 issued<br \/>\nin No.Ma.Nee.2\/4924\/98 is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index   :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<br \/>\nkvsg<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Commissioner<br \/>\nMadurai Corporation<br \/>\nMadurai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court T.S.Chandrasekaran vs The Commissioner on 8 October, 2004 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 08\/10\/2004 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice V.KANAGARAJ Writ Petition No.9971 of 1998 T.S.Chandrasekaran .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Commissioner Madurai Corporation Madurai 2. Mr.Chellappa Door No.2, Mela Ponnagaram second street Corporation New Colony Madurai.1. .. Respondents [&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-65329","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>T.S.Chandrasekaran vs The Commissioner on 8 October, 2004 - 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\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.S.Chandrasekaran vs The Commissioner on 8 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-27T17:59:00+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.S.Chandrasekaran vs The Commissioner on 8 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-27T17:59:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1667,\"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\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004\",\"name\":\"T.S.Chandrasekaran vs The Commissioner on 8 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-27T17:59:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.S.Chandrasekaran vs The Commissioner on 8 October, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.S.Chandrasekaran vs The Commissioner on 8 October, 2004 - 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\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.S.Chandrasekaran vs The Commissioner on 8 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-27T17:59:00+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.S.Chandrasekaran vs The Commissioner on 8 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-27T17:59:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004"},"wordCount":1667,"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\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004","name":"T.S.Chandrasekaran vs The Commissioner on 8 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-27T17:59:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-chandrasekaran-vs-the-commissioner-on-8-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.S.Chandrasekaran vs The Commissioner on 8 October, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65329","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=65329"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65329\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65329"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65329"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65329"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}