{"id":85617,"date":"2003-07-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003"},"modified":"2016-03-15T06:40:12","modified_gmt":"2016-03-15T01:10:12","slug":"t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003","title":{"rendered":"T. Ganesan vs The Chairman on 25 July, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">T. Ganesan vs The Chairman on 25 July, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 25\/07\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\n\nWRIT PETITION.NO.1143 OF 1996 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 8082 OF 1998\n\n\nT. Ganesan\nField Assistant (N.M.R.),\nO\/o. the District Environment\nEngineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution\nControl Board,\nNo.244, Tiruchendur Road,\nTirunelveli.            ..  Petitioner in both WPs\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Chairman,\n   Taminadu Pollution Control Board,\n   Guindy, Madras 600 032.\n\n2. The District Environmental Engineer,\n   Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,\n   244, Tiruchendur Road,\n   Madras 600 032.              ..  Respondents in both WPs\n\n        Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the\nissuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.V.  Dhanapalan\n\nFor Respondents 1-2    :  Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>                The petitioner has been working as Field Assistant  on  N.M.R.<br \/>\nbasis  under  the  Tamil  Nadu  Pollution  Control  Board in the office of the<br \/>\nDistrict Environmental Engineer, Tirunelveli.  His initial appointment as  NMR<br \/>\nwas  done  on  the basis of an interview conducted by the Board from among the<br \/>\ncandidates sponsored by the employment exchange.  He joined as Field Assistant<br \/>\non 1.2.1992.  He continued in the above capacity for 4 years with intermittent<br \/>\nbreak of one  or  two  days  after  every  89  days  of  work.    He  filed  a<br \/>\nrepresentation for regularisation of his service with effect from 1.2.1992 and<br \/>\nsince  the  application  was  not  disposed  of,  he filed W.P.No.1143 of 1996<br \/>\nseeking for writ of Mandamus  directing  the  respondents  to  regularise  the<br \/>\nservice with  effect  from  1.2.1992.    During pendency of the aforesaid writ<br \/>\npetition, as per the proceedings dated 29.5.1998, an order of termination  was<br \/>\nissued.   Thereafter  the petitioner filed W.P.No.8082 of 1998 challenging the<br \/>\norder of termination and an order of interim stay was granted on 16.6.1998 and<br \/>\nwith effect from 19.6.1998, the  petitioner  was  reinstated.    Subsequently,<br \/>\nduring  pendency  of  the  aforesaid  two writ petitions, the respondents have<br \/>\npassed order of regularisation regularising the  services  of  the  petitioner<br \/>\nwith effect  from 28.10.1999.  In the above background of undisputed facts and<br \/>\nevents, the contentions raised in the two writ petitions are to be considered.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The question raised in W.P.No.8082 of 1998  is  no  longer<br \/>\nnecessary  to  be  considered  as  in the meantime, the petitioner after being<br \/>\nreinstated, has  been  regularised  in  service.    Therefore,  the  order  of<br \/>\ntermination has lost its efficacy.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   Learned  counsel  appearing  for the respondents has also<br \/>\nsubmitted that since the petitioner has been regularised from 28.10.1 998, the<br \/>\nprayer in W.P.No.1143 of 1996 has become infructuous and  the  questions  need<br \/>\nnot be decided.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the other<br \/>\nhand has submitted that the petitioner has been regularised with  effect  from<br \/>\n28.10.1999  along with many other persons, who were appointed subsequently and<br \/>\njunior to  him.    It  has  been  submitted  that  the  petitioner  should  be<br \/>\nregularised with effect from the date of his initial appointment.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   Learned  counsel  appearing for the petitioner has placed<br \/>\nreliance upon Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishemnts  (Conferment  of  permanent<br \/>\nstatus  to  Workmen)  Act and has contended that after completion of 480 days,<br \/>\nthe petitioner should have been made permanent.  It is not disputed  that  the<br \/>\npetitioner had been appointed as a N.M.R.  with break of one or two days after<br \/>\n89 days.    Therefore,  it  is  not  possible  to hold that the petitioner had<br \/>\ncontinuously worked for 480 days on temporary basis.  The provisions contained<br \/>\nin the said Act would not be applicable to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that<br \/>\nthe very fact that the petitioner had been engaged with effect  from  February<br \/>\n1992  for  more  than  7 years only with artificial break of 1 or 2 days would<br \/>\nclearly show that there is a requirement for the post.    The  petitioner  had<br \/>\nbeen  initially  engaged  after undergoing a selection process and after being<br \/>\nsponsored by the employment exchange.  There  is  also  no  dispute  that  the<br \/>\npetitioner  has  the  required  qualification  for the post and therefore, the<br \/>\npetitioner should be regularised.  For the aforesaid purpose, learned  counsel<br \/>\nfor  the  petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision reported in 1990(1)<br \/>\nSCC 361 ( <a href=\"\/doc\/1592725\/\">BHAGWATI PRASAD v.  DELHI STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  The proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control  Board<br \/>\ntaking a  decision  to regularise various persons is on record.  It shows that<br \/>\nthe individuals concerned, including the petitioner,<br \/>\n         .  .  have been recruited through the employment exchange and as per<br \/>\nthe rules and regulations they are working as Daily  wages\/  Consolidated  pay<br \/>\nfield Assistants.      They  have  instituted  Cases  against  the  board  for<br \/>\nreguarisation of services.  Since they have undertaken to withdraw the case if<br \/>\nthey are regularised in the Boards Services, and as the appointments are made<br \/>\nthrough the employment Exchange and as they have the qualification to hold the<br \/>\npost, their services are regularised in the post of Field Assistant  from  the<br \/>\ndate of insurance of this Proceedings in the pay scale of Rs.3200-85-4900.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Their Salary is fixed from the date of appointment in the regular time<br \/>\nscale of pay of Rs.3200-85-4900 as under .  .  .<\/p>\n<p>From  the above, it is apparent that the petitioner had been recruited through<br \/>\nthe employment exchange as per the rules and regulations  of  the  Board,  and<br \/>\ntherefore,  the  only  question is whether the date of regularisation is to be<br \/>\ngiven effect from 28.10.1999 or from 1.2.1992<\/p>\n<p>as claimed by the petitioner or from any other date.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  It is of course true that in the proceedings, there  is  a<br \/>\nreference  that  such  persons have undertaken to withdraw their cases if they<br \/>\nare regularised.  Such an undertaking, if any,  cannot  be  held  against  the<br \/>\npetitioner.   A  person  trying  to  enforce  his right through a court of law<br \/>\nshould not be forced to withdraw his  case  on  the  pretext  of  giving  some<br \/>\nrelief.   It  is  another  matter  that  if  a  compromise is effected and the<br \/>\npetition for compromise is filed in accordance with law, such  compromise  can<br \/>\nbe given  effect  to.    However,  a  mere  recital that a party has agreed to<br \/>\nwithdraw a case if a particular relief is given would not stand in the way  of<br \/>\ngiving any  other  relief to such a party if he is otherwise entitled.  It has<br \/>\nbeen asserted by the petitioner that he has been regularised along with others<br \/>\nwho are junior to him and were subsequently  selected.    The  petitioner  had<br \/>\nearlier  made a representation and such representation had remaned unheeded by<br \/>\nthe employer which made the petitioner to file  writ  petition.    As  already<br \/>\nnoticed, there was no irregularity in the appointment of the petitioner at the<br \/>\ninitial  stage  and he is otherwise eligible and had been selected after being<br \/>\nsponsored by the employment exchange.  The Division  Bench  decision  of  this<br \/>\nCourt reported in  2002(4) CTC 385 ( <a href=\"\/doc\/531964\/\">L.  JUSTINE AND ANOTHER v.  THE REGISTRAR<br \/>\nOF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHENNAI AND TWO OTHERS)<\/a> would not applicable to the<br \/>\npresent case.  There is no irregularity in  the  initial  appointment  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner.   The  other decisions cited by the respondents relate to question<br \/>\nof regularisation of the persons whose initial appointment were irregular  and<br \/>\ndid  not have requisite qualification or there was absence of vacancy and need<br \/>\nnot be noticed specifically.  In the  present  case,  those  factors  are  not<br \/>\napplicable.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  As apparent from the Board Proceedings, the petitioner had<br \/>\nthe  requisite  qualification,  his name had been sponsored through employment<br \/>\nexchange and he had been selected in accordance with the Rules.   Nothing  has<br \/>\nbeen  brought on record to indicate that initial appointment of the petitioner<br \/>\nwas irregular in any manner.   Therefore,  the  petitioner  should  have  been<br \/>\nregularised  earlier  atleast  from  the  date of filing of the writ petition,<br \/>\ni.e., from February, 1996, if not from the initial date of joining.    In  the<br \/>\ncounter  affidavit  filed by the Board, the question of financial condition of<br \/>\nthe respondent Board has been indicated.  This is an aspect  which  cannot  be<br \/>\naltogether ignored.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.   Having  regard to all these aspects, I think interest of<br \/>\njustice would be served by giving a direction that the  petitioner  should  be<br \/>\ndeemed  to  be  appointed  on  regular basis with effect from February, 19 96.<br \/>\nIncrements should be calculated on that  basis  and  shall  be  payable  after<br \/>\n28.10.1999.   However,  no  other  amount  would be payable towards increments<br \/>\nprior to said date.  The entire period from February,  1  996  also  shall  be<br \/>\ntaken into account for seniority and pension.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.   Subject  to the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions<br \/>\nare disposed of.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<br \/>\ndpk<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Chairman,<br \/>\nTaminadu Pollution Control Board,<br \/>\nGuindy, Madras 600 032.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The District Environmental Engineer,<br \/>\nTamilnadu Pollution Control Board,<br \/>\n244, Tiruchendur Road,<br \/>\nMadras 600 032.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court T. Ganesan vs The Chairman on 25 July, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25\/07\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA WRIT PETITION.NO.1143 OF 1996 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 8082 OF 1998 T. Ganesan Field Assistant (N.M.R.), O\/o. the District Environment Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, [&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-85617","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. Ganesan vs The Chairman on 25 July, 2003 - 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-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T. Ganesan vs The Chairman on 25 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-15T01:10:12+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=\"7 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-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T. Ganesan vs The Chairman on 25 July, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-15T01:10:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1284,\"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-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003\",\"name\":\"T. Ganesan vs The Chairman on 25 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-15T01:10:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T. Ganesan vs The Chairman on 25 July, 2003\"}]},{\"@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. Ganesan vs The Chairman on 25 July, 2003 - 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-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T. Ganesan vs The Chairman on 25 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-15T01:10:12+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T. Ganesan vs The Chairman on 25 July, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-15T01:10:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003"},"wordCount":1284,"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-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003","name":"T. Ganesan vs The Chairman on 25 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-15T01:10:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ganesan-vs-the-chairman-on-25-july-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T. Ganesan vs The Chairman on 25 July, 2003"}]},{"@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\/85617","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=85617"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85617\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85617"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85617"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85617"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}