{"id":70409,"date":"2011-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011"},"modified":"2018-08-10T09:09:26","modified_gmt":"2018-08-10T03:39:26","slug":"the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"The Secretary vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Secretary vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 23\/02\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH\n\nWrit Appeal (MD) No.649 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007\nWrit Appeal (MD) No.650 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.2 of 2007\nWrit Appeal (MD) No.172 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.2 of 2008\n\nW.A.(MD)No.649 of 2007\n\nThe Secretary,\nSt.Joseph's College (Autonomous)\nTiruchirapalli - 620 002\t\t\t..\tAppellant\n\nvs\n\n1.\tThe State of Tamil Nadu,\n\trep.by its Secretary,\n\tDepartment of Higher Education,\n\tFort St.George,\n\tChennai - 600 009.\n\n2.\tThe Director of Collegiate Education,\n\tCollege Road,\n\tChennai - 600 006.\n\n3.\tTHe Joint Director of Collegiate Education,\n\tTiruchirapalli Region, Theppakulam,\n\tTiruchirapalli.\n\n4.\tThe Bharathidasan University,\n\trep.by its Registrar,\n\tPalkalaipeur,\n\tTiruchirapalli,\n\tTrichy District - 620 024.\t\t\t..\tRespondents<\/pre>\n
This writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
\nthe order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 24.9.2007 made in
\nW.P.(MD)No.7188 of 2006.\n<\/p>\n
W.A.(MD)No.650 of 2007<\/p>\n
The Secretary,
\nSt.Joseph’s College (Autonomous)
\nTiruchirapalli – 620 002\t\t\t..\tAppellant<\/p>\n
-vs-\n<\/p>\n
1.\tDr.M.Kalidoss<\/p>\n
2.\tThe Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
\n\tTiruchirapalli – 2.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe Director of Collegiate Education,
\n\tChennai – 600 006.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tK.Sundar Sekar\t\t\t\t..\tRespondents<\/p>\n
This writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
\nthe order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 24.9.2007 made in
\nW.P.(MD)No.4882 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
W.A.(MD)No.172 of 2008<\/p>\n
The Secretary,
\nSt.Joseph’s College (Autonomous)
\nTiruchirapalli – 620 002\t\t\t..\tAppellant<\/p>\n
vs<\/p>\n
1.\tDr.L.J.Chaarlas<\/p>\n
2.\tThe Director of Collegiate Education,
\n\tCollege Road, Nungambakkam,
\n\tChennai – 600 006.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
\n\tTiruchirapalli Region, Theppakulam,
\n\tTiruchirapalli.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tS.Irudayaraj\t\t\t\t..\tRespondents<\/p>\n
This writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
\nthe order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 8.10.2007 made in
\nW.P.(MD)No.1989 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant in all writ appeals   … Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
\n^For RR -1 to 3 in W.A.649\/2007;     … Mr.R.Janakiramalu,
\nRR-2 & 3 in W.A.650\/2007 & 172\/2008\t Spl. Govt. Pleader<\/p>\n
For R-1 in W.A.650\/2007\t\t      … Mr.K.Vellaisamy<\/p>\n
For R-1 in W.A.172\/2008\t\t     … Mr.M.Saravanan
\n\t\t\t\t\t for Mr.R.Subramanian<\/p>\n
For R-4 in W.A.649, 650\/2007 &\t      … No appearance
\nW.A.172\/2008<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
\tAll the above writ appeals are filed by the management of St.Joseph
\nCollege, Tiruchirapalli, which is a Private Religious Minority College.
\nW.A.No.649 of 2007 is filed against the order passed by the learned singled
\nJudge in W.P.(MD)No.7188 of 2006 dated 24.9.2007 dismissing the writ petition
\nfiled by the appellant herein (minority college) challenging the Government
\nOrder issued in G.O.Ms.No.1785 Education H3 Department dated 5.12.1988 insofar
\nas paragraph 4 Clause 7 is concerned (i.e, Seniormost person in the department
\nshall be designated as Head of the Department in a College).\n<\/p>\n
\t2.\tW.A.No.650 of 2007 is filed by the management against the order
\npassed in W.P(MD)No.4882 of 2007 dated 24.9.2007, wherein a direction was issued
\nto the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tiruchirapalli, to nominate the
\nfirst respondent therein as Head of the Department of Physics Department from
\n1.6.2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.\tW.A.No.172 of 2008 is also filed by the management of the College
\nchallenging the order made in W.P.No.1989 of 2007 dated 8.10.2007 allowing the
\nwrit petition filed by the first respondent in the writ appeal and to direct the
\nmanagement to designate the first respondent as Head of the Department of
\nCommerce.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.\tThe brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ appeals are as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)\tSt.Joseph College, Trichy (Autonomous) is an Arts and Science
\nCollege, established in the year 1844 administered by the Society of St.Joseph
\nCollege, which is a registered Society bearing registration No.7 of 1907-08.
\nThe College is a minority educational institution coming under the purview of
\nArticle 30 of the Constitution of India.  The College is now affiliated to the
\nBharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)\tThe College is conferred with autonomous status by the University
\nGrants Commission (UGC).  The National Assessment and Accreditation Council
\n(NAAC) had declared the college as “Accredited at the Five Star Level” in the
\nyear 2004 and UGC has awarded the status of “Centre for Potential for
\nExcellence” (CPE) in 2004.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)\tThe College is a Christian Minority College having more than 3,450
\nstudents and about 150 teaching staff, apart from non-teaching staff.  The
\ncollege is conducting   UG and PG courses, apart from Research and Doctoral
\ncourses.  It is having 15 departments and each department has a head known as
\n‘Head of the Department’ (HOD).  According to the management, the HOD will take
\ncare of the day-to-day administration of the department including distribution
\nand allocation of work to the members of the faculty, collection of fees,
\npreparing time tables, organise internal examinations, etc.  The HOD will be the
\nex-officio Chairman of the Board of Studies and College Academic Council.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d)\tThe Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.1785 Education (H3)
\nDepartment, dated 5.12.1988 giving directions to all aided colleges to designate
\nthe seniormost person in the department as HOD, irrespective of  Ph.D
\nqualification, and that the said designated person will not get any special pay
\nand allowance to that post.  The said Government Order is challenged by the
\nmanagement\/appellant contending that it is an infringement and interference in
\nthe administration of the minority management to run the college with the head
\nand staff of its choice; that it affects the internal autonomy of the
\ninstitution; that it gives power to the Director of Collegiate Education to
\ndesignate the seniormost person in the department as HOD in a minority college
\nis not valid;  that the Heads of Department is vested with the administration of
\nthe entire department like the principal of the college; and that, the
\nmanagement is prevented from designating an eminent person of its choice, etc.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e)\tTwo of the seniormost persons viz., the first respondent in
\nW.A.No.650 of 2007 and 172 of 2008 have filed the respective writ petitions
\ncomplaining that they have not been designated as HOD of Physics and Commerce.
\nTaking note of the said Government Order as well as the various decisions of
\nthis Court and the Honourable Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge allowed
\nthe writ petitions filed by the seniormost staff viz., first respondent in the
\nabove writ appeals and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant
\nchallenging the Government Order, against which these writ appeals are preferred
\nby the management of the College.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.\tMr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the appellant College
\nmanagement contended that the Government Order was issued to nominate\/designate
\nthe seniormost person in the department as HOD in Government Colleges\/aided
\ncolleges and there is no reference about the applicability of the same to
\nminority colleges where the appointing authority is the management and the
\nmanagement alone can designate the HOD.  The learned counsel also submitted that
\nHOD post is like the post of the Principal of the College, having administrative
\nresponsibility and the choice of designation should be left with the management.
\nBy the impugned Government Order the said right of the management is taken away
\nwhich is an interference in the right of the administration,  guaranteed under
\nArticle 30(1) of the Constitution of India.   The learned counsel also submitted
\nthat even though the Division Bench of this Court earlier upheld the claim of a
\nseniormost lecturer to be designated as HOD, the Government Order was not
\nchallenged in that writ petition and therefore the said judgment cannot be
\napplied to these cases, as vires of the Government Order is challenged by the
\nmanagement in this matter.  The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of
\nthe Division Bench reported in 2011 (1) CTC 162 (The Forum of Minority
\nInstitutions and Associations v. The State of Tamil Nadu) and contended that in
\nthe said decision the University Grants Commission’s direction to constitute a
\nCommittee to select staff of the minority colleges has been set aside by this
\nCourt and the principle behind the said judgment is equally applicable to the
\nfacts of the case as HOD nomination\/designation is the issue in these writ
\nappeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.\tMr.K.Vellaisamy and Mr.M.Saravanan. learned counsels for the first
\nrespondent in W.A.Nos.650\/2007 and 172\/2008 on the other hand submitted that the
\nseniormost lecturers were also initially selected by the minority management and
\nthey are continuously employed in the college without any blemish and so long as
\ntheir performance is found good by the minority management, they are to be
\ndesignated as HOD which will confer some status, though not with additional
\nemolument or allowance and it is one of the conditions of service.  The impugned
\norder nowhere restricts the right of the management in the administration and it
\nis only a regulation to designate the seniormost person as HOD.   The learned
\ncounsels also submitted that conditions of service can also be fixed by the
\nGovernment as the appellant College is getting cent percentage aid from the
\nGovernment and therefore the regulations issued by the Government is bound to be
\nfollowed by the minority management also.  The learned counsels also submitted
\nthat the admission of students, appointment of Lecturer, selection of the
\nprincipal are vested with the management and insofar as the designation of HOD
\nis concerned, it is only designation and no selection process arises to exercise
\nthe discretion of the minority management and therefore the right of
\nadministration is not at all affected and as such the Government Order is not in
\nviolation of the Article 30(1) of the constitution of India.  The learned
\ncounsels heavily relied on the judgment of the Division Bench reported in 2001
\n(2) CTC 84 (The Principal and Secretary Madras Christian College v. Dr.M.Shams
\nand<\/a> another) where similar issue regarding the designation of seniormost person
\nas HOD arose and this Court held that even in minority colleges seniormost
\nperson should be designated as HOD.  The learned counsel ultimately submitted
\nthat the order of the learned single Judge is legal and no interference is
\ncalled for.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.\tWe have also heard the learned Special Government Pleader for
\nrespondents 1 to 3 in W.A.No.649 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.\tWe have considered the rival submissions made by the respective
\ncounsels.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.\tThe point for consideration in these writ appeals are whether the
\nimpugned Government order is affecting the rights of the appellant minority
\nmanagement in any manner.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.\tThe appellant College is governed under the Tamil Nadu Private
\nColleges Regulation Act, 1976, except certain provisions which are specifically
\nheld not applicable.   Under the said Act, minority religious college is also
\ncovered.  Section 15 of the Act states that the University may make regulation,
\nstatute or ordinance specifying qualification required for appointment of
\nteachers in any private college and as per Section 15(2), the Government may
\nmake rule specifying the qualifications required for appointment to any post
\nother than teachers in any private college.  Section 17 empowers the Government
\nto make rules regarding conditions of service.   Tamil Nadu Private College
\nRegulation Rules, 1976 was framed under Section 53.   Rule 7 provides for
\npayment of grant and Rule 11 deals with conditions of service etc., of Teachers
\nand others in college.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.\tThe Government Order issued which was impugned in the writ petition
\nfiled by the management is based on the Government of India, Ministry of Human
\nResources Development instructions issued on 17.6.1987, 7.9.1987, 22.7.1988 and
\n20.9.1988.  The relevant clause in the Government order reads as follows:
\n“The Seniormost person in the department of college irrespective of his Ph.D
\nqualification will be nominated and designated as Senior Lecturer\/ Selection
\nGrade Lecturer\/ Reader\/ Head of the Department, by the Director of Collegiate
\nEducation and that no special pay will be allowed to that post.”
\nThis is the only clause challenged by the appellant management.  From the
\nperusal of the above clause in the Government Order, it is evident that it is
\nonly designation of status as HOD and no selection is involved.  The learned
\ncounsel for the appellant also submitted that for designating seniormost person
\nas HOD, no selection procedure is contemplated and the only objection is that
\ndiscretion of the management to designate any  person in the department as HOD,
\nis taken away.  Admittedly senior most person to be designated as HOD is also
\nselected and appointed by the management of the minority College initially and
\nhis continuance in the college without giving room for any complaint by
\nobserving the rules and regulations of the College is not disputed.  If any
\nperson is unfit to continue as a Lecturer\/Senior Lecturer\/Reader, he will not be
\nin a position to continue in the college as disciplinary power is vested with
\nthe management.  Thus, on any account, a person serving in the minority college
\nalone is to be nominated\/designated as HOD.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.\t(a)\tIn the decision reported in AIR 1974 SC 1389 : (1974) 1 SCC
\n717 (The Ahmedabad St.Xaviers College SOciety v. State of Gujarat) the Supreme
\nCourt listed out the ambit of right to administration in paragraph 19, which
\nreads thus,<\/p>\n
\t“19.\t………….  The right to administer is said to consist of four
\nprincipal matters. First is the right to choose its managing or governing body.
\nIt is said that the founders of the minority institution have faith and
\nconfidence in their own committee or body consisting of persons elected by them.
\nSecond is the right to choose its teachers.  It is said that minority
\ninstitutions want teachers to have compatibility with the ideals, aims and
\naspirations of the institution.  Third is the right not to be compelled to
\nrefuse admission to students.  In other words, the minority institutions want to
\nhave the right to admit students of their choice subject to reasonable
\nregulations about academic qualifications.  Fourth is the right to use its
\nproperties and assets for the benefit of its own institution.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)\tIn the decision reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697 (Islamic Academy of
\nEducation v. State of Karnataka) the Supreme Court<\/a> held that reasonable
\nregulations can be laid down by the State Government.  Paragraphs 121 reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“121.  The right to administer does not amount to the right to
\nmaladminister and the right is not free from regulation.  The regulatory
\nmeasures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration.
\nThe regulatory measures can be laid down by the State in the administration of
\nminority institutions.”\n<\/p>\n
In paragraph 123, the Supreme Court broadly categorised the permissible
\nregulations, which reads thus,<\/p>\n
\t“123.  Some of the permissible regulations\/restrictions governing
\nenjoyment of Article 30(1) of the Constitution are:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)\tGuidelines for the efficiency and excellence of educational
\nstandards (see Sidhajbhai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1963 SC 540), State of Kerala
\nv. Mother Provincial<\/a> ((1970) 2 SCC 417), and All Saints High Schol v. Government
\nof A.P. ((1980) 2 SCC 478).\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)\tRegulations ensuring the security of the services of the teachers or
\nother employees (see Kerala Education Bill, 1957, Re (AIR 1958 SC 956) and All
\nSaints High School v. Government of A.P. ((1980) 2 SCC 478).\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)  Introduction of an outside authority or controlling voice in the
\nmatter of service conditions of employees (see All Saints High School v.
\nGovernment of A.P. ((1980) 2 SCC 478).\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv)\tFraming rules and regulations governing the conditions of service of
\nteachers and employees and their pay and allowances (see State of Kerala v.
\nMother Provincial<\/a> ((1970) 2 SCC 417) and All Saints High School v. Government of
\nA.P. ((1980) 2 SCC 478).\n<\/p>\n
\t(v)\tAppointing a high official with authority and guidance to oversee
\nthat rules regarding conditions of service are not violated, but, however, such
\nan authority should not be given blanket, uncanalised and arbitrary powers (see
\nAll Saints High School v. Government of A.P. ((1980) 2 SCC 478).\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi)\tPrescribing courses of study or syllabi or the nature of books (see
\nState of Kerala v. Mother Provincial<\/a> ((1970) 2 SCC 417) and All Saints High
\nSchool v. Government of A.P. ((1980) 2 SCC 478).\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii)  Regulation in the interest of efficiency of instruction,
\ndiscipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like (see
\nSidhajbhai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1963 SC 540).”\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)\tIn the decision reported in (1979) 2 SCC 124 (Lily Kurian v. Lewina)<\/a>
\nin paragraph 36 the Supreme Court held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“36.\tProtection of the minorities is an article of faith in the
\nConstitution of India.  The right to the administration of institutions of
\nminority’s choice enshrined in Article 30(1) means ‘management of the affairs’
\nof the institution.  That right is, however, subject to the regulatory power of
\nthe State.  Article 30(1) is not a charter for maladministration; regulation, so
\nthat the right to administer may be better exercised for the benefit of the
\ninstitution, is permissible; but the moment one goes beyond that and imposes,
\nwhat is in truth, not a mere regulation but an impairment of the right to
\nadminister, the Article comes into play and the interference cannot be justified
\nby pleading the interests of the general public; the interests justifying
\ninterference can only be the interests of the minority concerned.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13.\tThe purport of the impugned order is to designate the seniormost
\nLecturer\/Selection Grade Lecturer\/Reader as HOD  as no selection\/appointment is
\ninvolved for designation of the seniormost person as the right of the management
\nto administer the college without interference, which is guaranteed right under
\nArticle 30(1) of the Constitution of India, is not affected.  It is only a
\nregulatory measure taken by the Government to give weightage to the seniority at
\nleast at the HOD level.  If the seniormost person, who is designated as HOD is
\nnot performing his duties and if any dereliction of duty is noticed, it is upto
\nthe management to take action against such person and the same is also not
\ncurtailed in any manner.  Conditions of service to a person in service with some
\nstatus after a long number of years of service based on seniority is a
\nlegitimate expectation and the same is only recognised by the Government Order
\nwhich is not in any way affecting the rights of the minority management.
\nSeniority plays a vital role in Employee’s service career, which has to be
\nrecognised.  The Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2010 AIR SCW 2116
\n(H.S.Vankani v. State of Gujarat)<\/a> considered the said issue and in paragraph 25
\nheld thus,
\n\t“25.\tSeniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to
\nplay in one’s service career.  Future promotion of a Government servant depends
\neither on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-
\nseniority etc.  Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in one’s
\nchosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale
\nto do quality work.  It instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands
\nrespect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound
\nadministration. If the settled seniority at the instance of one’s junior in
\nservice is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among
\nthe Government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost.
\n……….”\n<\/p>\n
Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
\nimpugned Government Order, particularly clause 7 is in violation of Article
\n30(1) of the Constitution of India and such  regulation will infringe the right
\nof the management is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.\t(a)\tSimilar issue regarding the right of a Teacher, who is
\nattaining the age of superannuation during the middle of the academic year in a
\nminority school, can claim the right of re-employment as a matter of right was
\nconsidered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1179, 1242, 1243\/1993,
\n132\/1994 AND 14226\/1993 and the Division Bench of this Court in the decision
\ndated 6.9.1994.  The Division Bench held that the teachers attaining the age of
\nsuperannuation during the middle of the academic year are entitled to claim re-
\nemployment even in minority schools, if they are satisfying the general
\nconditions viz., they are physically fit, their character and conduct are good.
\nThe Division Bench in its decision relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court
\nreported in AIR 1974 SC 1389 (The Ahmedabad St.Xaviers College SOciety v. State
\nof Gujarat) to come to the above conclusion.  In the above Supreme Court
\nJudgment it is held that minority institutions under the guise of their right
\nguaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution cannot claim total immunity from
\nthe regulations and laws of the University, if they want affiliation or
\nrecognition, but the character of permissible regulation must depend upon their
\npurpose.   The Division Bench pointed out that the purpose of the Government
\nOrder permitting re-employment is not to impose a new teacher upon the minority
\ninstitutions receiving aid and it is the very same teacher who has been selected
\nby the private management and continued in their service upto the age of
\nsuperannuation and has been found fit for further continuation, is directed to
\nbe re-employed in order to ensure that the benefit of the service is available
\nto students during the rest of the academic year.  The Division Bench ultimately
\nheld that the Government order regarding re-employment was reasonable and was
\nmerely regulatory in nature.  A professor, who worked in a minority college is
\nentitled to demand re-employment till the end of the academic year was
\nconsidered by this Court in the decision reported in 1996 WLR 259 (C.Davidthampi
\nDhas v. The Governing Body of N.M.Christian College, Marthandam & Others),<\/a>
\nwherein this Court held that re-employment can be claimed as per the Government
\nOrder, though the management is a minority college.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)\tIn the decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 311 (Frank Anthony P.S.E.
\nAssociation v. Union of India) the Supreme Court<\/a> held thus:
\n\t“The excellence of the instruction provided by an institution would depend
\ndirectly on the excellence of the teaching staff and in turn, that would depend
\non the quality and the contentment of the teachers.  Conditions of service
\npertaining to minimum qualifications of teachers, their salaries, allowances and
\nother conditions of service which ensure security, contentment and decent living
\nstandards to teachers and which will consequently enable them to render better
\nservice to the institution and the pupils cannot surely be said to be violative
\nof the fundamental right guaranteed by Art.30(1) of the Constitution.  The
\nmanagement of minority Educational Institution cannot be permitted under the
\nguise of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art.30(1) of the Constitution to
\noppress or exploit its employees any more than any other private employee.
\nOppression or exploitation of the teaching staff of an educational institution
\nis bound to lead, inevitably, to discontent and deterioration of the standard of
\ninstruction imparted in the institution affecting adversely the object of making
\nthe institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or
\nother persons who resort to it.  The management of minority institution cannot
\ncomplain of invasion of the fundamental right to administer the institution when
\nit denies the members of its staff the opportunity to achieve the very object of
\nArt.30(1) which is to make the institution an effective vehicle of education.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)\tIn AIR 1992 SC 1630 (St.Stephen’s College v. The University of
\nDelhi)  the Supreme Court<\/a> held that,
\n“……………….. the regulations which may lawfully be imposed as a
\ncondition of receiving grant must be directed in making the institution an
\neffective minority institution.  The regulation cannot change the character of
\nthe minority institution.  Such regulation must satisfy a dual test, the test of
\nreasonableness and the test that it is regulative of the educational character
\nof the institution. It must be conducive to making the institution an effective
\nvehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to
\nit.  It is thus evident that the rights under Article 30(1) remain unaffected
\neven after securing financial assistance from the Government.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(d)\tIn T.M.A.Pai Foundation case, (2002) 8 SCC 481, the Supreme Court
\nheld that the right conferred on minority institutions under Article 30 is only
\nto ensure quality and there can be regulatory measures for ensuring educational
\ncharacter and standards and maintaining academic excellence.  There can be
\nchecks of administration as are necessary to ensure that the administration is
\nefficient and sound so as to serve the academic needs of the institution.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e)\tAny regulation issued without affecting the right of the management
\nto select a candidate for appointment is upheld by this Court as well as the
\nHonourable Supreme Court in the decisions reported in AIR 1999 SC 50 (N.Ammad v.
\nManager, Emjay High School),<\/a> (2007) 1 SCC 386 (Secretary, Malankara Syrian
\nCatholic College v. T.Jose).  In the<\/a> latter case in paragraph 21 by following
\nthe earlier decisions the Supreme Court held that the state can prescribe (i)
\nthe minimum qualifications, experience and other criteria bearing on merit for
\nmaking appointments; (ii) the service conditions of employees without
\ninterfering with the overall administrative control by the management over the
\nstaff.  It is also made clear, all laws made by the State to regulate the
\nadministration of educational institutions and grant of aid will apply to
\nminority educational institutions also. But if any such regulations interfere
\nwith the overall administrative control by the management over the staff, or
\nabridges\/dilutes in any other manner, such regulations to that extent will be
\ninapplicable to minority institutions.  The said cases dealt with selection of
\nPrincipal or Headmaster of an institution and the Supreme Court held that  such
\npower is vested with the management as the Principal\/Headmaster post is of
\nprimary importance, who will be the head of the institution responsible for the
\nfunctional efficiency as well as the quality of education and discipline in the
\ninstitution.  He is also responsible for maintaining philosophy and objects of
\nthe institution.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.\tIn this case, as noticed by us, the impugned Government Order is
\nrecognising the right of a seniormost person in the department to be nominated
\nand designated as Seniormost Lecturer\/Selection Grade Lecturer\/Reader\/Head of
\nthe Department.  It is undoubtedly a condition of service to persons, who are in
\nservice in the minority college and in other words, it is recognition of right
\nto the staff serving in the very same minority college to enjoy certain status
\nwithout any monitory benefit.    The impugned order was issued by the Government
\nto prevent maladministration and it is intended to promote the excellence of
\neducation of the minority college itself.  Therefore, it is only regulatory in
\nnature and not in any way interference with the rights of the minority
\nmanagement.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.\tThe learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the HOD is to
\nbe involved in academic matters including decision making.  Merely because the
\nseniormost person is designated as HOD\/Seniormost Lecturer\/Selection Grade
\nLecturer\/Reader, the management is not prevented from getting the views of other
\nstaff members regarding any aspect including academic matters and the collective
\nview of the staff shall be taken into consideration without depending upon the
\nview expressed by the HOD\/Seniormost person.  Hence the contention raised by the
\nlearned counsel for the appellant in that respect has no substance.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.\tThe learned single Judge considered all these aspects and dismissed
\nthe writ petitions filed by the management and allowed the writ petition filed
\nby the seniormost lecturers for designation.  We do not find any reason to
\ninterfere with the said findings given by the learned single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the result, the writ appeals are dismissed and the the order of the
\nlearned single Judge are confirmed.  There is no order as to costs.  Connected
\nmiscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
vr<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.\tThe Secretary, Department of Higher Education,
\n\tFort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe Director of Collegiate Education,
\n\tCollege Road, Chennai – 600 006.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
\n\tTiruchirapalli Region, Theppakulam, Tiruchirapalli.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe Registrar, Bharathidasan University,
\n\tPalkalaipeur, Tiruchirapalli,
\n\tTrichy District – 620 024.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Secretary vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23\/02\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Appeal (MD) No.649 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007 Writ Appeal (MD) No.650 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of […]<\/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-70409","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Secretary vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 2011 - 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-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Secretary vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-10T03:39:26+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=\"23 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-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Secretary vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-10T03:39:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4401,\"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-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011\",\"name\":\"The Secretary vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-10T03:39:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Secretary vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 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":"The Secretary vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 2011 - 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-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Secretary vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-10T03:39:26+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Secretary vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-10T03:39:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011"},"wordCount":4401,"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-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011","name":"The Secretary vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-10T03:39:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Secretary vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 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\/70409","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=70409"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70409\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70409"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70409"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70409"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}