{"id":69625,"date":"2011-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011"},"modified":"2014-06-19T11:50:11","modified_gmt":"2014-06-19T06:20:11","slug":"a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"A.Murugesan vs The District Employment Officer on 13 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.Murugesan vs The District Employment Officer on 13 October, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 13\/10\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.9168 of 2011\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010\nand M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011\n\nA.Murugesan\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.The District Employment Officer,\n   Ramanathapuram.\n\n2.The Revenue Division Officer,\n   Paramakudi,\n   Ramanathapuram District.\n   (Cause title amended vide Court order\n   dated 20.04.2011 in M.P.No.2 of 2010)\n\n3.The Special Tahsildar,\n   Adi-Dravidar Welfare,\n   Paramakudi,\n   Ramanathapuram District.\t\t\t...  Respondents\n\n   (Cause Title amended as per the\n   order of this Court dated 20.04.2011\n    in M.P.No.2 of 2010)\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st\nrespondent to register the name of the petitioner in the M.B.C. priority\ncategory for public employment as per the qualification of the petitioner\nforthwith and to sponsor the petitioner for public employment in accordance with\nthe seniority in the M.B.C. priority category.\n\n!For Petitioner\t  \t... Mr.Veerakathiravan\n^For Respondents  \t... Mr.M.Govindan,\n\t\t\t    Special Government Pleader.\n\t\t\t\t               ******\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>*******<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction<br \/>\nto the respondents to register his name under the M.B.C. priority category for<br \/>\nany public employment as per the qualification and to sponsor his name for any<br \/>\npublic employment, for which, names may be called for from the District<br \/>\nEmployment Officer, Ramanathapuram, the first respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. When the matter came up on 19.07.2010, notice of motion was<br \/>\nordered.  Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for amendment and<br \/>\nbrought on record the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram<br \/>\nDistrict as the second respondent.  Accordingly, the cause title stood modified<br \/>\nby an order dated 20.04.2011.  On notice, the respondents were appeared.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner&#8217;s mother<br \/>\nKaruppaiammal, a resident of Seyyalur Village in Paramakudi Taluk, gave a land<br \/>\nfor acquisition for the purpose of assigning house sites for the Adi-dravidar<br \/>\ncommunity people to the extent of 0.25.0 hectares.  The petitioner as well as<br \/>\nhis mother were paid a compensation of Rs.31,961\/-.   The petitioner, on the<br \/>\nbasis of the acquisition of the land, obtained a certificate from the Special<br \/>\nTahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, dated<br \/>\n04.03.2010 stating that he can be considered as a priority candidate on the<br \/>\nbasis of land looser.  It is not clear as to how the said Tahsildar, gave such a<br \/>\ncertificate contradictory to the spirit of the order passed by the State<br \/>\nGovernment in G.O.Ms.No.188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.P)<br \/>\nDepartment, dated 28.12.1976.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. In any event, when the petitioner made a representation, the<br \/>\nsecond respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, by his communication<br \/>\ndated 30.03.2010 informed the Special Tahsildar that by acquisition of the land,<br \/>\nwhether the petitioner was entitled to get priority quota?.  The Special<br \/>\nTahsildar was asked to specifically inform as to whether the land was acquired<br \/>\nafter issuance of notification under Section 4(1) or by private negotiations and<br \/>\nwhether the petitioner is solely depending upon the income from the land for his<br \/>\nsurvival and whether the petitioner was entitled for inclusion of his name in<br \/>\npriority quota.  The Special Tahsildar, who gave the certificate, earlier vide<br \/>\nhis communication dated 27.05.2010 addressed to the second respondent, Revenue<br \/>\nDivisional Officer, informed him that the land was acquired by direct<br \/>\nnegotiations and not by compulsory acquisition through a notification under<br \/>\nSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.  With reference to the dependency of<br \/>\nthe land, it was stated that the land in Survey No.71\/2 to the extent of 0.25.0<br \/>\nhectares was in the name of six persons and therefore, it cannot be said that he<br \/>\nwas solely depending upon the land for his survival.  On receipt of said<br \/>\ncommunication, the second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, informed the<br \/>\nfirst respondent, District Employment Officer, that the petitioner is not<br \/>\neligible to be included in the priority category, as the land acquired was only<br \/>\nfor the purpose of assigning house sites for Adi-Dravidar community, through<br \/>\nprivate negotiations and it cannot be said that he was solely depending upon the<br \/>\nincome from the land.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. The petitioner, instead of challenging the said communication,<br \/>\nsought for a direction to include his name in the priority category.  It is not<br \/>\nclear as to how such a direction can be sought for, especially when the second<br \/>\nrespondent had informed the Employment Exchange that the petitioner was not<br \/>\nliable for inclusion in the priority category.  This Court while noticing<br \/>\nseveral such incidents, where certificates were issued indiscriminately  by<br \/>\nSpecial Tahsildars only on the ground that some land, were acquired for the<br \/>\nHarijan Welfare Schemes under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, has directed action<br \/>\nto be initiated for recalling such certificates.  The purpose for which, a<br \/>\npriority category was created is stipulated by the State Government vide<br \/>\nG.O.M.S.No.188 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.P) Department dated<br \/>\n28.12.1976. It can be seen that it is only with a view to help the dependents,<br \/>\nwho were primarily or wholly living for their livelihood depend on the lands<br \/>\nacquired.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. Paragraph 5 of the Annexure may be usefully reproduced:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;(v) Members of the family (including members of Schedule Caste\/Scheduled<br \/>\nTribe) whose lands have been acquired for Government purposes as well as for the<br \/>\nprojects of the Public Sector Undertakings subject to the condition that<br \/>\npreference should be given to those who are dependent for their livelihood<br \/>\nprimarily or wholly on the lands acquired and from among them to members of the<br \/>\nScheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes who may be eligible for employment.&#8221;<br \/>\n(emphasis cited)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. If it is viewed in that context, then the certificate relied upon<br \/>\nby the petitioner cannot be said to be a genuine certificate qualifying himself<br \/>\nfor the said priority category and that when an indiscriminate certificate was<br \/>\nissued by the third respondent, and when explanation were called for came out<br \/>\nthe truth, that the lands to the extent of 0.25.0 Hectares was in the names of<br \/>\nsix persons and that the petitioner was only a sharer.  Even the lands acquired<br \/>\nwere for house sites and not agricultural lands.  In the affidavit filed in<br \/>\nsupport of the writ petition, the petitioner had asserted that his livelihood,<br \/>\ndepended upon the income from the land.  On the contrary, in paragraph 7 of the<br \/>\naffidavit, he had failed in his attempt to show that his livelihood would<br \/>\naffect, in view of the invoking of the special Act for implementing the Harijan<br \/>\nwelfare Scheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. In the present case, the petitioner had cleverly entered into<br \/>\nprivate negotiations with the authorities only for getting a certificate.<br \/>\nAlready, this Court had directed the State Government and all Subordinate<br \/>\nOfficers to enquire into such  issuance of certificates and if necessary, to<br \/>\nrecall those certificates, if they do not come strictly within the parameters<br \/>\nlaid down by the Government in G.O.M.S.No.188 Personnel and Administrative<br \/>\nReforms (Per.P) Department dated 28.12.1976.  It must also be noted that under<br \/>\nArticle 16, any public employment has to be opened for entry to all citizens and<br \/>\na priority quota must be strictly come within the exception to the Article.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. The conduct of the petitioner if encouraged, may give rise to<br \/>\nmany such fraudulent certificates being obtained, thereby jeopardizing the<br \/>\ninterest of genuine persons, who  were standing in the queue for getting<br \/>\nemployment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. Hence, there is no case made out in this writ petition.<br \/>\nAccordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.  Consequently, connected<br \/>\nmiscellaneous petitions are closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>vsm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The District Employment Officer,<br \/>\n   Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Revenue Division Officer,<br \/>\n   Paramakudi,<br \/>\n   Ramanathapuram District.\n<\/p>\n<p>   (Cause title amended vide Court order<br \/>\n   dated 20.04.2011 in M.P.No.2 of 2010)<\/p>\n<p>3.The Special Tahsildar,<br \/>\n   Adi-Dravidar Welfare,<br \/>\n   Paramakudi,<br \/>\n   Ramanathapuram District.\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A.Murugesan vs The District Employment Officer on 13 October, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13\/10\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.9168 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 A.Murugesan &#8230; Petitioner vs. 1.The District Employment Officer, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Revenue Division Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. [&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-69625","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.Murugesan vs The District Employment Officer on 13 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-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Murugesan vs The District Employment Officer on 13 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-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=\"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-19T06:20:11+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=\"6 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-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Murugesan vs The District Employment Officer on 13 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-19T06:20:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1107,\"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-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011\",\"name\":\"A.Murugesan vs The District Employment Officer on 13 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-19T06:20:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Murugesan vs The District Employment Officer on 13 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.Murugesan vs The District Employment Officer on 13 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-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Murugesan vs The District Employment Officer on 13 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-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":"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-19T06:20:11+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Murugesan vs The District Employment Officer on 13 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-19T06:20:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011"},"wordCount":1107,"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-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011","name":"A.Murugesan vs The District Employment Officer on 13 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-19T06:20:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murugesan-vs-the-district-employment-officer-on-13-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Murugesan vs The District Employment Officer on 13 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\/69625","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=69625"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69625\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}