{"id":92955,"date":"2006-05-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-05-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006"},"modified":"2016-12-19T00:31:00","modified_gmt":"2016-12-18T19:01:00","slug":"c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006","title":{"rendered":"C. Manonmony vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 May, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
C. Manonmony vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 May, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 16\/05\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR        \n\nWrit Petition No.30686 of 2006\nand W.P.M.P.No.33607 of 2005   \n\nC. Manonmony                   ...     Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.State of Tamil Nadu\nrep.by its Secretary,\nEducation Dpartment, \nFort St. George,\nChennai 600 009. \n\n2.The Director of\nSchool Education, \nD.P.I.Campus, \nCollege Road, \nChennai 600 006. \n\n3. The Chief Educational Officer,\nNagercoil.\n\n4.The District Educational Officer,\nKuzhithurai Educational District,\nKuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.\n\n5.Mar Mathew Kavukattu  \nMemorial High School, \nrep.by its Correspondent,\nVaruthattu, Medhu Kummal (PO),  \nKanyakumari District.\n\n6.The Correspondent, \nMar Mathew Kavukattu  \nMemorial High School, \nVaruthattu, Medhu Kummal (PO)   \nKanyakumari District.           ...Respondents\n\n        This writ petition is filed  under  Article  226  of  Constitution  of\nIndia,  praying  this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling\nfor the records relating  to  the  proceedings  of  the  2nd  respondent  vide\nNa.Ka.No.71738\/D1(1)\/2002,  culminating  in  his order dated 27.4 .2005, quash\nthe same and direct the second respondent to sanction the petitioner's post as\nB.T.Assistant in the 5th respondent school, with effect from 2.7.1993.\n\n!For Petitioner  :  Mr.N.Rajan\n\n^For Respondents 1to 4:  Mr.V.Karthikeyan,\n                        Addl.Government Pleader\n\nFor Respondents 5 & 6   :       Mr.Isaac Mohanlal\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
        By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself  is  taken  up  for
\nfinal disposal.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      In  this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of
\nthe second respondent dated 27.4.2005 and  direct  the  second  respondent  to
\nsanction  the  petitioner’s post as B.T.Assistant in the 5th respondent School
\nwith effect from 2.7.1993.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      The brief facts necessary for disposal of  the  writ  petition
\nare as follows.\n<\/p>\n
        (a)     Petitioner   was   appointed   as  B.T.Assistant  in  the  5th
\nrespondent  School  from  2.7.1993,  which  is  an  Aided   Minority   School.
\nPetitioner passed M.A.    and  B.Ed degrees.  Petitioner is fully qualified to
\nhold the post of B.T.  Assistant as per Annexure V of the Tamil  Nadu  Private
\nSchools   Regulation   Rules,  1974,  and  the  Tamil  Nadu  Minority  Schools
\n(Recognition and Payment  of  Grants)  Rules,  1977.    The  staff  grant  and
\nmaintenance grant of the 5th respondent School is fully paid by the Government
\nand the sanction of post in the 5th respondent School is governed by the norms
\nissued by  the  Government  from time to time.  According to the affidavit, in
\nthe 5th  respondent  school,  one  Headmaster,  one  Tamil  Pandit,  two  B.T.
\nAssistants,  7  Secondary Grade Teachers, one Physical Education Teacher and 2
\noffice assistants posts are sanctioned.\n<\/p>\n
        (b)     Petitioner states that she was appointed in the 5th respondent
\nschool on account of the requirement of additional post of B.T.  Assistant due
\nto the increase in students  strength.    According  to  the  petitioner,  the
\nappointment  was intimated to the respondents 2, 3 and 4 by the 5th respondent
\nthrough their periodical statement regarding the strength of staff.   The  5th
\nrespondent  school  is  entitled  to  get  additional  sanction  of  one  B.T.
\nAssistant post as per the Teacher-Pupils ratio norms prescribed by  the  first
\nrespondent.   The  5th respondent School repeatedly approached the 2nd and 4th
\nrespondents for additional sanction of posts so as  to  claim  salary  of  the
\npetitioner.   Since  no  response was forthcoming from the 4th respondent, the
\n5th respondent sent a representation on 22.11.2000 and  requested  the  second
\nrespondent to sanction the B.T.Assistant post and two secondary grade teachers
\nposts.   In  the  said  representation,  the 5th respondent stated that as per
\nG.O.Ms.No.525 School Education (D1)  Department,  dated  29.12.1997,  the  5th
\nrespondent  school  is  eligible to be sanctioned additional B.T.Assistant and
\ntwo secondary grade posts.  The said Government Order prescribed the ratio  of
\n40 students for one teacher.\n<\/p>\n
        (c)     According  to  the  petitioner,  she  is  working  in  the 5th
\nrespondent school without salary from 1993 and she is married and  having  two
\nchildren.   Petitioner averred in the affidavit that a legal notice was issued
\non 4.2.2002 to the 2nd and 4th respondents  requesting  them  to  approve  the
\nappointment of  petitioner as B.T.  Assistant in the 5th respondent School and
\nin spite of issuance of counsel notice, no steps having been taken, petitioner
\nfiled W.P.No.16044 of 2002 before this Court and prayed for a direction to the
\nsecond respondent to sanction one B.T.  Assistant post in the  5th  respondent
\nSchool  on  the  basis  of  the  representation  of  the  5th respondent dated
\n22.11.2000 so as to enable the petitioner to get her  post  approved  and  get
\nsalary.   This Court by order dated 8.5.2002 directed the second respondent to
\nconsider the representation of the management dated 22.11.2000 on  merits  and
\npass orders within a period of six weeks.\n<\/p>\n
        (d)     According  to  the  petitioner,  when  the  proposal was under
\nactive consideration of the second respondent, 6th  respondent  prevented  the
\npetitioner  from reporting to duty from 5.6.2002, pursuant to which petitioner
\nsent a representation on 17.6.2002 to the second respondent  and  stated  that
\ndue  to  the  non-approval  of  the  petitioner’s  appointment,  she  is being
\ndisturbed by the 6th respondent.  Since 5th respondent school  is  a  minority
\nschool,  the  second respondent refused to interfere and therefore, petitioner
\nfiled W.P.No.39380 of 2002 and prayed for a direction to the 6th respondent to
\npermit the petitioner to work in the 5th respondent School as B.T.   Assistant
\non regular  basis.   The said writ petition was admitted on 25.10.2002 and the
\nsame is pending.\n<\/p>\n
        (e)     In the meantime, the second  respondent  passed  the  impugned
\norder  pursuant  to  the  direction  of this Court in W.P.No.16044 of 2002 and
\nrejected the request of the 5th respondent School.  Second respondent  in  the
\nimpugned  order  stated that the request of the 5th respondent Management will
\nbe  considered  as  per  G.O.Ms.No.525,  School  Education  Department   dated
\n29.12.1997,  as and when the Government sanction additional posts to the aided
\nschools.  The said order of the second respondent is in effect  not  rejection
\nof 5th  respondent’s request for sanction of B.T.  Assistant post in favour of
\nthe petitioner, but it is only a reply intimating the sanction of post by  the
\nGovernment in  future.    Petitioner having aggrieved due to the evasive reply
\ngiven by the second respondent through the impugned order, filed  the  present
\nwrit petition.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      Respondents  1  to  4 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is
\nstated  that  the  5th  respondent  school  is  a  minority  school,   granted
\nrecognition and  aid  by  the  Government.    The  sanctioned  post in the 5th
\nrespondent School is one Headmaster, one Tamil  Pandit,  2  B.T.Assistants,  8
\nSecondary Grade  Teachers,  among  others.    It  is  further  stated that the
\npetitioner was working without sanction of post in the 5th  respondent  school
\nand she was appointed at the will and pleasure of the Correspondent only.  The
\nproposal  sent  by the Correspondent on 22.11.20 00 was rejected on 18.6.2002.
\nThe petitioner having been appointed without  the  sanction  of  post,  salary
\ncould not  be  claimed  and disbursed.  The 4th respondent was not responsible
\nfor the appointment of the petitioner in the 6th respondent  school.    It  is
\nfurther  stated  in  the  counter  affidavit  that  as  per the norms fixed in
\nG.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997 the staff fixation was made only  according  to
\nthe  need  of  the  school  by  the  inspection  made  by  the  authorities on
\nconsideration of strength of the school and therefore there is  no  illegality
\nor arbitrariness  in  the impugned order.  According to the counter affidavit,
\nthe strength of the classes 9 and 10 is 55 and 49 respectively, for which  two
\nB.T.    Assistant  Posts  are  already  sanctioned  and  therefore  additional
\nB.T.Assistant post cannot be sanctioned.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      Respondents 5 and 6 jointly filed a separate counter affidavit
\nand stated that 5th respondent School is one of  the  School  established  and
\nadministered  by  the  Syro  Malabar  Catholic  Schools  under  the Diocese of
\nThuckalay in Kanayakumari District and it is a  Christian  Religious  Minority
\nSchool.   The  management  appointed the petitioner considering her request to
\nhandle classes in a non-sanctioned post and the petitioner was paid honorarium
\nof Rs.500\/- per month.  Since the petitioner is working  in  a  non-sanctioned
\npost,  the  management  was  taking  efforts to bring the petitioner under the
\nDiocese on the basis of student strength and when the school was  reopened  on
\n5.6.2002,  the  Correspondent told the petitioner that there was likelihood of
\nsanction of new posts in the upgraded Middle School  in  the  same  management
\nviz., Sacred  Heart Middle School, Kamaraj Nagar, Padanthalumoodu.  Petitioner
\nrefused to accept the said suggestion and stopped attending  the  school  from
\nthe next day.  Petitioner was also offered appointment in another School viz.,
\nHoly  Family  Higher Secondary School, Mukkuttukal, where there was chances of
\nsanction of new post of B.T.   Assistant.    However,  petitioner  refused  to
\naccept the  said  suggestion also.  According to the Counter affidavit, aid is
\ngiven only towards staff grant and no maintenance grant is given and the staff
\nstrength is regulated  by  the  Education  Department  by  issuing  Government
\nOrders.  It  is  further stated that only two B.T.  Assistants were sanctioned
\nto the School and according to G.O.M.S.No.525 dated 29.12.1997, 5th respondent
\nSchool would be eligible for one more post of B.T.  Assistant, but the same is
\nnot sanctioned by the department till date.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner  argued  that
\nonly  due  to  the  non-sanction  of  post by the second respondent to the 5th
\nrespondent School, petitioner was not permitted to work from 2.6.2002 .    The
\nManagement,  being  a  fully  aided  School,  is entitled to appoint teachers,
\nprovided there is student strength  and  the  appointee  is  fully  qualified.
\nAccording  to the counsel, 5th respondent Management, being a minority School,
\nneed not get permission from the  department  to  appoint  a  teacher  and  in
\nanticipation of  sanction of post, petitioner was appointed as B.T.  Assistant
\nfrom 2.7.1993 as the petitioner is fully qualified for the said  post  as  per
\nAnnexure  V  of  the  Tamil  Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Rules,
\n1974.  It is further argued that nowhere in the counter affidavit filed by the
\nrespondents 1 to 4 it is stated that due to want of student  strength  in  the
\n5th respondent  School  no  additional  B.T.    Assistant post was sanctioned.
\nLearned counsel pointed out that in  fact,  the  strength  of  the  school  is
\nadmitted  by  the  respondents 1 to 4 in the counter affidavit at page 4 i.e.,
\n9th standard 55 students and 10th standard 49 students, totally 104  students.
\nIn  the  counter  affidavit  filed by the management also at paragraph 7 it is
\nstated that 5th respondent School is having sufficient  strength  to  get  one
\nmore B.T.    Assistant  post sanctioned as per G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997.
\nTherefore according to the learned counsel for the  petitioner,  the  impugned
\norder  of  the  second  respondent  refusing  sanction  of one additional B.T.
\nAssistant post to the 5th respondent School is improper and  contrary  to  the
\nnorms issued   in   G.O.Ms.No.525  dated  29.12.1997.    The  learned  counsel
\nultimately contended that though the impugned order postponed the sanction  of
\nthe post to the 5th respondent School, on enquiry it is learnt that due to the
\nplea  of want of finance, the additional posts are not sanctioned to any aided
\nschool.\n<\/p>\n
        6.      The learned Government Advocate taking note of  the  averments
\nmade  in  the counter affidavit submitted that the petitioner was appointed by
\nthe 5th respondent Management in a non-sanctioned post and  unless  and  until
\nthe  post  is  sanctioned,  petitioner  is not entitled to get her appointment
\napproved and get salary  from  the  department.    The  learned  counsel  also
\nsubmitted  that due to severe financial crisis in the Government, the sanction
\nof posts to aided schools are delayed.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      The learned counsel for the Management viz., respondents 5 and
\n6 argued that it is  true  that  the  petitioner  was  appointed  in  1993  in
\nanticipation  of  sanction  of  post  by  the  respondents 1 to 4 and the 5 th
\nrespondent School, being a fully aided school, unless and until  the  post  is
\nsanctioned by  the  department,  salary to the petitioner cannot be paid.  The
\nlearned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was offered transfer  to
\nthe  another  school  due  to  want  of sanction of post in the 5th respondent
\nSchool and if the department sanction one additional B.T.  Assistant  post  in
\nthe  5th  respondent  school,  the  Management  has no objection to retain the
\npetitioner in the 5th respondent school.  The learned counsel  also  submitted
\nthat want of finance shall not be a ground to deny posts.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      I  have  considered  the rival submissions made by the learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader for  the
\nrespondents 1 to 4 as well as learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6.\n<\/p>\n
        9.      The  point  in  issue  is  whether the 5th respondent Minority
\nAided School is eligible to get sanction of one  additional  B.T.    Assistant
\npost  so  as  to  enable  the  petitioner  to get her appointment approved and
\nwhether respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to postpone the sanction of  posts  to
\naided schools.\n<\/p>\n
        10.     Admittedly,  the  strength of the School in Standards 9 and 10
\nare more than 100 for all these years.  As per G.O.Ms.No.525 School  Education
\n(D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, a High School section of an Aided School is
\nentitled to get sanction of following posts,
\n“III.   HIGH SCHOOLS (Standards IX to X)\n<\/p>\n
a)      The teacher-pupil  ratio  of 1:40 will be followed.  On this basis the
\nfollowing norms will be followed:\n<\/p>\n
Average attendance              No.of posts\nUpto 80                 1 Head Master and\n                        2 B.T.Assistants\n<\/pre>\n
        The third post  will  be  given  when  the  strength  exceeds  60  and
\nadditional sections will be permitted in the slab of 40.\n<\/p>\n
b)      Eligibility for Language teachers will be as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        Total of sections               No.of Language\n        in standards VI to X    Teachers posts\n\n        (i) Upto 5                              1<\/span>\n        (ii) 6 to 10                            2<\/span>\n        (iii) 11 and above                      3<\/span>\n\nc)      When the strength in classes VI to X in High Schools    exceeds   250,\n<\/pre>\n
one post of Physical Education Teacher  will  be  sanctioned  and  for   every
\nadditional strength     of 300, one additional post of Physical Education
\nTeacher will be sanctioned subject to a maximum of 3.”\n<\/p>\n
From  the above referred norms it is clear that the average attendance upto 80
\nin standards 9 and 10,  the  High  School  section  is  entitled  to  get  one
\nHeadmaster and two B.T.    Assistant posts.  The third post of B.T.  Assistant
\nwill be sanctioned if the strength exceeds 60 and additional section  will  be
\npermitted in  the  slab  of  40.    Thus,  it is manifestly clear that the 5th
\nrespondent School having more than 100 students in  standards  9  and  10,  is
\nentitled  to get one more B.T Assistant post because the Government Order says
\nthat the third post will be sanctioned when the strength exceeds 60.  There is
\nno dispute with regard to the strength of the School and even according to the
\ncounter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4, the  strength  of  students  in
\nstandards 9th  and  10th  is  more  than  100.    Therefore,  as per the above
\nTeacher-Pupil ratio, the 5th respondent School is entitled to  get  the  third
\nB.T.  Assistant post as per the norms issued in G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997
\ncame into force from 1.6.1998.\n<\/p>\n
        11.     The  validity of G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997 was challenged
\nbefore this Court.  The Government justified the issuance of Government  Order
\nand  stated that only for equal distribution of posts to all aided schools the
\nsaid Government Order was issued and  an  assurance  was  also  given  in  the
\ncounter  affidavit that whenever a school is in need of additional post as per
\nthe students strength, necessary steps will be taken  to  sanction  additional
\npost.  The said portion of the counter affidavit was extracted in the judgment
\nreported  in  1999 (1) MLJ 635 (North Arcot Ambedkar and Sambuvarayar District
\nrecognised Private Aided Primary  and  Middle  Schools  Managers  and  Teacher
\nManagers Association v.  The State of Tamil Nadu),<\/a> which reads thus,
\n        “…   In  fact,  there is an assurance in the counter itself (in para\n<\/p>\n
23) that when the school is found eligible for  additional  post  as  per  the
\nrevised norms, necessary steps will be taken to sanction additional posts.”\n<\/p>\n
From the above stand it is made clear by the Government before this Court that
\nwhenever  School  is  in  need  of  additional  sanction  of  post, it will be
\nsanctioned,  if  the  norms  issued  in  G.O.Ms.No.525  dated  29.12.1997   is
\nsatisfied.\n<\/p>\n
        12.     G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997 was given effect from 1.6.1998.
\nHence  the  5th  respondent School is eligible to be sanctioned one additional
\npost of B.T.  Assistant at least from 1.6.1998 and on such sanction of post by
\nthe first respondent to the 5th respondent School, petitioner is  entitled  to
\nget B.T  Assistant  salary,  at  least from 1.6.1 998.  In the impugned order,
\nnowhere it is stated that the 5th respondent School is  not  entitled  to  get
\nsanction of additional  B.T.   Assistant post.  The impugned order only states
\nthat as and when need arises, request of the 5th  respondent  School  will  be
\nconsidered.\n<\/p>\n
        13.     The  submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
\nwant of finance cannot be a ground to deny sanction of the post  to  an  Aided
\nSchool is also well founded.\n<\/p>\n
        (a)     A  Division  Bench  of  this Court in the decision reported in
\n1988 WLR 130 (Church of South India v.  The Government  of  Tamil  Nadu)<\/a>  held
\nthat want of finance is not a ground to deny teaching post to an aided school.\n<\/p>\n
        (b)     Similar issue arose before the Honourable Supreme Court in the
\ndecision reported  in AIR 1996 SC 1 (State of Maharashtra v.  Manubhai Pragaji
\nVashi).  In the<\/a> said judgment, non-extension of grant in aid to a private  law
\ncollege was  considered  by  the  Honourable  Supreme  Court.   The Honourable
\nSupreme Court held that a duty is cast on the State to extend the grant in aid
\nand the same cannot be whittled down either by pleading paucity  of  funds  or
\notherwise  and  ultimately  directed the Government to extend the grant in aid
\nscheme to all Government Recognised Private Law Colleges.\n<\/p>\n
        (c)     In AIR 2000 SC 634 (Chanigarh Administration v.   Rajni  Vali)<\/a>
\nin paragraph 6 the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “…  imparting primary and secondary education to the students is the
\nbounden duty of the state administration.  It is a constitutional mandate that
\nthe  State shall ensure proper education to the students on whom the future of
\nthe Society depends.  In line with  this  principle,  the  State  has  enacted
\nStatute and framed Rules and Regulations to control\/regulate establishment and
\nrunning of private schools at different levels.  The State Government provides
\ngrant-in-aid  to  private  schools with a view to ensure smooth running of the
\ninstitution and to ensure that the standard of teaching  does  not  suffer  on
\naccount of  paucity  of  funds.    It  needs  no  emphasis that appointment of
\nqualified and efficient teachers is  a  sine  qua  non  for  maintaining  high
\nstandard of  teaching  in  any educational institution.  Keeping in mind these
\nand other relevant factors this Court in number of cases  has  intervened  for
\nsetting   right  any  discriminatory  treatment  meted  out  to  teaching  and
\nnon-teaching staff of a particular institution or a class of institutions.”
\nIn paragraph 10, the Supreme Court considered the contention of want  of  fund
\nin the following manner,
\n        “Coming  to  the  contention  of  the  appellants  that the Chandigarh
\nAdministration will find it difficult to bear the additional financial  burden
\nif  the  claim  of  the respondents 1 to 12 is accepted, we need only say that
\nsuch a contention raised  in  different  cases  of  similar  nature  has  been
\nrejected by   this   Court.     The  State  Administration  cannot  shirk  its
\nresponsibility of ensuring proper education in schools  and  colleges  on  the
\nplea of   lack   of  resources.    It  is  for  the  authorities  running  the
\nAdministration to find out the ways  and  means  of  securing  funds  for  the
\npurpose.   We  do  not  deem it necessary to consider this question in further
\ndetail.  The contention raised by the appellants in this regard  is  rejected.
\n…”\n<\/p>\n
        (d)     A  constitution  Bench  of the Honourable Supreme Court in the
\ndecision reported in AIR 1992 SC 1630 (St.Stephen’s College v.  University  of
\nDelhi)<\/a> considered  the issue of aid to minority institutions.  In paragraph 89
\nthe Supreme Court held thus,
\n        “The educational institutions are not business houses.   They  do  not
\ngenerate wealth.  They cannot survive without public funds or private aid.  It
\nis said that there is also restraint on collection of students fees.  With the
\nrestraint  on  collection  of  fees, the minorities cannot be saddled with the
\nburden of maintaining educational institutions without grant-in-aid.\n<\/p>\n
They do not have economic advantage over others.  It is not possible  to  have
\neducational institutions  without State aid.  This was also the view expressed
\nby Das, C.J., in Re:  Kerala Education Bill  case.    The  minorities  cannot,
\ntherefore, be asked to maintain educational institutions on their own.”\n<\/p>\n
        (e)     A  Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in 1997
\nWLR 619 (State of Tamil Nadu and 4 others v.  Melapalayam Muslim Magalir Kalvi
\nSangam)(DB) considered the plea of the Government as to  the  non-availability
\nof  funds and held that the Government having granted temporary recognition of
\napproval of standards 6 to 8 with aid, the same cannot be denied on  the  plea
\nof want of funds.  In paragraph 6 the Court held thus,
\n        “…   The  citizens  of  the  country  have  a  fundamental  right to
\neducation, which right flows from Article 21.  This right is, however, not  an
\nabsolute right.    In  other  words, every child\/citizen of this country has a
\nright to free  education  until  he  completes  the  age  of  fourteen  years.
\nThereafter,  his  right  to  education  is  subject  to the limits of economic
\ncapacity and development of the State.  …”\n<\/p>\n
In fact, the Division  Bench  followed  the  Judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court
\nreported in AIR 1958 SC 956 (In re The Kerala Education Bill, 1957) wherein it
\nis  held  that  the  minorities  cannot  be  asked to maintain the educational
\ninstitutions of their own funds.\n<\/p>\n
        (f)     The said right to education under Article 21 was considered by
\nthe Supreme court in Unnikrishnan J.P.  v.  State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR<\/a>  1993
\nSC 2178.    The  said  proposition  of  the  law  was  also  approved  by  the
\nConstitutional Bench decision in TMA Pai Foundation and others V.    State  of
\nKarnataka,<\/a> (2002) 8 SCC 481.\n<\/p>\n
        (g)     By  Judgment  dated 23.8.1990 in W.A.No.24 of 1990, a Division
\nBench of this Court held that once  recognition  is  granted  with  aid  to  a
\nprivate School, the sanction of posts shall be made automatically if the norms
\nfor the sanction of post is satisfied, otherwise the grant of recognition will
\nbe rendered  meaningless.   The Division Bench upheld the order of the learned
\nsingle Judge made in W.P.No.4570 of 1987 dated 27.9.1989 (T.Sekarapillai and 5
\nothers v.  The State of Tamil Nadu and 2 others) with slight modification.  In
\nthe decision reported in 1999 WLR 555 (The  C.S.I.    Kanyakumari  Diocese  v.
\nGovernment  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  others<\/a>) another Division Bench of this Court
\nwhile dealing with the request of a minority management to sanction additional
\nposts, directed to sanction posts  based  on  student  strength  as  per  G.O.
\nMs.No.250 dated  29.2.1964  from 18.2.1991 within three months.  S.L.P.(Civil)
\nNo.19141 and 19142 of 1998 filed against the order of the Division  Bench  was
\ndismissed by  the  Honourable  Supreme  Court  by order dated 16.12.1999.  The
\nrespondents 1 to 4 herein implemented the said order by sanctioning additional
\nposts retrospectively  to  C.S.I.    Primary  School   Venkanji,   Kanyakumari
\nDistrict.\n<\/p>\n
        (h)     Insofar  as  the  aided schools are concerned, the Hon’ble Mr.
\nJustice K.Venkataswamy (as he then was) in W.P.No.15966  of  1990  dated  21.1
\n2.1993 allowed the writ petition filed by the management and directed sanction
\nof one Botany  P.G.   Assistant post.  Earlier, a Division Bench of this Court
\nin W.A.No.28 of 1990 by Judgment dated 10.1.1990 (  Dr.A.S.Anand,J.    (as  he
\nthen  was)  &  Nainar  Sundaram,J.) took a similar view following the decision
\nreported in 1988 WLR 130 (cited supra).  The same view was taken by this Court
\nin the following unreported decisions insofar as  the  sanction  of  posts  to
\naided colleges are concerned.\n<\/p>\n
(i)     W.P.No.2093 of 1994 dated 10.4.1995 (R.Jayasimha Babu, J.)\n<\/p>\n
(ii)    W.P.No.1048 of 1994 dated 17.4.1996 (M.Srinivasan, J, Acting
\n        Chief Justice (as he then was)).  The said order was confirmed by
\n        the Division Bench in W.A.No.682 of 1996 dated 26.7.1996
\n        (K.A.Swamy, J., Chief Justice & AR.Lakshman, J.  (as he then
\n        was)).\n<\/p>\n
(iii)   W.P.No.6758 of 1993 dated 13.9.1996 (Shivraj patil, J.  (as he then
\n        was)).\n<\/p>\n
(iv)    W.P.No.5602 of 1996 dated 20.8.1997 (P.Sathasivam,J.)<\/p>\n
        14.     The right to get aid by minority managements which were forced
\nto  give  an  undertaking  while getting recognition that the schools will not
\nclaim aid forever was also considered by this Court in series of decisions.  A
\nlearned single Judge of this court in W.P.No.6592 of 1993 (Arokia Annai Middle
\nSchool, Palayam, Kanyakumari District and another v.  The State of Tamil  Nadu
\nand  two others) dated 11.10.1993 ( K.S.Bakthavatchalam, J.) held that even if
\nthe management has given an undertaking that it will not claim  aid  from  the
\nGovernment  that  undertaking  has  no  value  and  a  direction was issued to
\nsanction post to the said school.  The respondents filed W.A.No.1040  of  1997
\nagainst  the said order of the learned single Judge and the same was dismissed
\nby a Division Bench of this Court on 11.8.1997.  The  SLP  filed  against  the
\nsaid  decision  of  the  Division  Bench  was also dismissed on 17.8.1 998 and
\nfinally the Government sanctioned posts to the said School.\n<\/p>\n
        15.     The said judgment  of  the  Division  Bench  was  followed  by
\nanother  single  Judge  in the decision in W.P.No.5831 of 1997 dated 11.6.1998
\n(K.Sampath, J.).  Writ Appeal filed against the said order  in  W.A.No.228  of
\n1999 was also dismissed by this 29.1.2005.\n<\/p>\n
        16.     Here  the  5th  respondent  school is granted recognition with
\naid.  Thus the matter in issue is already settled with regard to the  plea  of
\nwant of finance by the Government, pursuant to which, post cannot be denied to
\nthe recognised  schools  and  rticularly  to  the  aided  schools.  As rightly
\ncontended by the learned counsel for the petitioner a solemn  undertaking  was
\ngiven before this Court by the first respondent to the effect that as and when
\nthe  School  is  in need of additional post it will be sanctioned and the said
\nundertaking is recorded in the judgment reported in 1999 (1)  MLJ  635  (cited
\nsupra).   In  view  of  the  settled  position  of  the law with regard to the
\nsanction of post to the aided schools as and when the school  is  eligible  to
\nget  additional  post,  the  respondents  1  to  4  are  not  justified in not
\nsanctioning one additional B.T.  Assistant post to the 5th respondent  school,
\nat least from 1.6.1998.\n<\/p>\n
        17.     G.O.Ms.No.525  dated  29.12.1997  having  came into force from
\n1.6.1 998, the first respondent is directed to sanction  one  additional  B.T.
\nAssistant  post  to the 5th respondent school in favour of the petitioner from
\n1.6.1998 and the 4th  respondent  is  directed  to  sanction  salary  of  B.T.
\nAssistant to  the  petitioner 1.6.1998 to 31.5.2002.  Since the petitioner has
\nnot worked from 1.6.2002, she is not entitled to get salary from  1.6.2002  to
\n31.5.2006.   The  5th  respondent  is  directed to restore the services of the
\npetitioner as B.T.    Assistant  from  the  beginning  of  the  academic  year
\n2006-2007.   It  is  made  clear  that the petitioner shall not be entitled to
\nclaim any salary from the management  funds  prior  to  1.6.1998  as  she  was
\nappointed in an unsanctioned post.\n<\/p>\n
        18.     The writ petition is partly allowed with the above directions.
\nNo costs.  Connected WPMP No.33607 of 2005 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
vr<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.      The Secretary, Education Department,
\n        Fort St.  George, Chennai  600 009.<\/p>\n
2.      The Director of School Education,
\n        D.P.I.Campus, College Road,     Chennai  600 006.\n<\/p>\n
3.      The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n
4.      The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai Educational District,
\n        Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court C. Manonmony vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 May, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 16\/05\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Writ Petition No.30686 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.33607 of 2005 C. Manonmony … Petitioner -Vs- 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary, Education Dpartment, Fort St. […]<\/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-92955","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC. Manonmony vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 May, 2006 - 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\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C. Manonmony vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-18T19:01:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C. Manonmony vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 May, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-18T19:01:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4268,\"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\\\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006\",\"name\":\"C. Manonmony vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-18T19:01:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C. Manonmony vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 May, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"C. Manonmony vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 May, 2006 - 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\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C. Manonmony vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-18T19:01:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C. Manonmony vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 May, 2006","datePublished":"2006-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-18T19:01:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006"},"wordCount":4268,"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\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006","name":"C. Manonmony vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-18T19:01:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manonmony-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-may-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C. Manonmony vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 May, 2006"}]},{"@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\/92955","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=92955"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92955\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92955"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92955"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92955"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}