{"id":107856,"date":"2009-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-12T17:18:06","modified_gmt":"2016-01-12T11:48:06","slug":"centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Centre For Earth Science Studies vs Dr.Ansom Sebastian on 28 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Centre For Earth Science Studies vs Dr.Ansom Sebastian on 28 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 15743 of 2009(K)\n\n\n\n1. CENTRE FOR EARTH SCIENCE STUDIES\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. DR.ANSOM SEBASTIAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI\n\n Dated :28\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                             V.GIRI, J\n                          .......................\n           W.P.(C)s.15743, 19365, 19367, 19792 &\n                          19806 of 2009\n                          .......................\n            Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      These writ petitions raise a common issue, concerning<\/p>\n
the correctness of an order passed by the State Information<\/p>\n
Commission,      exercising its powers under the Right to<\/p>\n
Information Act, 2005, (Central Act 22\/2005) (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as ‘the Act’). The parties in these writ petitions<\/p>\n
are common. Writ petitions have therefore, been heard<\/p>\n
together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. I<\/p>\n
will refer to the facts in W.P.(C).15743\/2009 in detail.<\/p>\n
2.    Petitioner is a Research and Development Institution of<\/p>\n
the Kerala State Council for Science                Technology &<\/p>\n
Environment. 1st respondent is working with the petitioner as<\/p>\n
Scientist E1    By an application dated 7.1.2007, under the<\/p>\n
Act, she sought for certified copies of Self Assessment<\/p>\n
Reports for the period 1980 – 1997 in respect of herself as<\/p>\n
well as six of her colleagues. By another application filed on<\/p>\n
9.1.2007, the 1st respondent requested for certified copies<\/p>\n
of    comments and marks awarded by the Assessment<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15743\/09 & Connected
\nCases
\n                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
Committee.       By another application dated 7.2.2007, she<\/p>\n
sought for certified copies of Annual Confidential Reports<\/p>\n
(ACRs) in respect of herself and six of her colleagues, for<\/p>\n
the period 1980-1997.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    The Public Information Officer of the petitioner denied<\/p>\n
the information sought for on the ground that the same<\/p>\n
does not come under the Act. 1st respondent preferred an<\/p>\n
appeal under the Act before the Appellate Authority, who<\/p>\n
directed the petitioner to furnish information\/documents<\/p>\n
relating to the applicant as also the names of the members<\/p>\n
of the Assessment Promotion Committee.        The Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority denied information and copies of documents<\/p>\n
relating to other personnel.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    1st respondent then approached the State Information<\/p>\n
Commission with appeals against the orders of the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority. 2nd respondent required the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
to submit its reports. Appeals were then heard by the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent, the State Information Commission. The stand<\/p>\n
taken by the petitioner before the State Information<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15743\/09 & Connected
\nCases
\n                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
Commission was that the information\/documents sought for<\/p>\n
by the applicant, the 1st respondent, are confidential in<\/p>\n
nature and relates to other personnel, that the disclosure of<\/p>\n
the same would adversely affect the           inter personnel<\/p>\n
relationship and the information sought is purely personal<\/p>\n
which has no relevance to any public interest. That the<\/p>\n
State Information Commission, the 2nd respondent, passed<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 order allowing the appeals filed by the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
and directed the petitioner to furnish the information and<\/p>\n
copies of the documents sought by the 1st respondent.<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 has been challenged in this writ petition.<\/p>\n
5.    A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent.<\/p>\n
I heard Mr.U.K.Ramakrishnan, learned senior counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner, Mr.M.Ajay, learned counsel for the State<\/p>\n
Information Commission and Mr.S.P.Chaly, learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the 1st respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.    2nd respondent, the State Information Commission,<\/p>\n
found that the public authority was reluctant in imparting<\/p>\n
information sought by the 1st respondent on the confidential<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15743\/09 & Connected
\nCases
\n                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
reports of the other employees as also the information on<\/p>\n
the proceedings of the Assessment Promotion Committee<\/p>\n
including the marks awarded to others, on the grounds of<\/p>\n
secrecy and confidentiality and on the premise that request<\/p>\n
did not have any public interest.       The public authority<\/p>\n
essentially preceded on the premise that disclosure of the<\/p>\n
information was exempted under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j)<\/p>\n
of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.   The Commission found that the confidential reports of<\/p>\n
the    employees       of   an  Organisation   have     limited<\/p>\n
confidentiality, to the extent that it should not fall into the<\/p>\n
hands of someone not concerned with the establishment.<\/p>\n
But it cannot remain under wraps forever. It was further<\/p>\n
found that there was a fiduciary relationship between the<\/p>\n
employer and the employee of an Organisaion. Commission<\/p>\n
also found that confidential reports are written by officers<\/p>\n
and it is the accepted practice that the officers’ report<\/p>\n
should be what has been recorded on his over all<\/p>\n
performance.       Confidential report is an instrument to<\/p>\n
continuously assess an employee and to remind him as to<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15743\/09 & Connected
\nCases
\n                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
how he\/she stands in the eye of the Assessing Officer. An<\/p>\n
employee should be provided access to his\/her confidential<\/p>\n
report essentially when the same are specifically asked for.<\/p>\n
There is no reason why the process should be kept secret.<\/p>\n
The Commission found as a fact that the proceedings of the<\/p>\n
Committee on the confidential report of the officers cannot<\/p>\n
be kept under the veil of secrecy. Commission therefore,<\/p>\n
found that the information, in the context, is in public<\/p>\n
domain     and therefore, has to be provided, free of cost<\/p>\n
within seven days from the date of the appeal.<\/p>\n
8.    Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that<\/p>\n
there are certain informations, the disclosure of which is<\/p>\n
exempted under Section 8 of the Act. What is relevant in<\/p>\n
the context is Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act which reads<\/p>\n
as follows.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        8(1)(e) – Information available to a person, in
\n        his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent
\n        authority is satisfied that the larger public
\n        interest warrants the disclosure of such
\n        information<\/p>\n
        8(1)(j) – Information which relates to personal
\n        information the disclosure of which has not<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15743\/09 & Connected
\nCases
\n                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
        relationship to any public activity or interest,
\n        or which would cause unwarranted invasion of
\n        the privacy of the individual unless the Central
\n        Public Information Officer or the State Public
\n        Information Officer or the appellate authority,
\n        as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger
\n        public interest justifies the disclosure of such
\n        information
\n              Provided that the information, which
\n        cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State
\n        Legislature shall not be denied to any person.<\/p>\n
9.    It is contended that while an employee might be<\/p>\n
entitled to get copies of all her confidential records, she<\/p>\n
cannot get the confidential records or the         assessment<\/p>\n
records of other employees. It was contended that insofar<\/p>\n
as the ACRs of other employees are concerned,             1st<\/p>\n
respondent herein cannot seek disclosure of the same as a<\/p>\n
matter of right. But such disclosure would be permissible<\/p>\n
only when larger public interest so warrants.<\/p>\n
10. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent as also the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the State Information Commission<\/p>\n
contended that the information sought for by the applicant<\/p>\n
cannot be considered as information available with the<\/p>\n
petitioner, in the course of any fiducial relationship that<\/p>\n
the petitioner may have with any other person and<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15743\/09 & Connected
\nCases
\n                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
consequently, the disclosure of the same would not come<\/p>\n
under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act. So also it was contended<\/p>\n
that Section 8(1)(j)       exempts only disclosure of personal<\/p>\n
information, disclosure of which has no relationship to any<\/p>\n
public activity or interest. Nor can the information cause<\/p>\n
any unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.<\/p>\n
Reference is also made to Section 22 of the Act which<\/p>\n
provides that the provisions of the Act shall have overriding<\/p>\n
effect over any other law for the time being in force.<\/p>\n
11. I am not in a position to find that the information<\/p>\n
sought for by the 1st respondent in the present case is an<\/p>\n
information which is possessed by the petitioner in any<\/p>\n
fiduciary capacity vis-a-vis any other employee of the<\/p>\n
Organisation. The information sought for only relates to the<\/p>\n
proceedings of the Assessment Promotion Committee and<\/p>\n
the confidential reports of other employees, who were<\/p>\n
considered along with the petitioner.          Obviously, this<\/p>\n
information possessed by the employer cannot be treated as<\/p>\n
information that is possessed by a person placed in a<\/p>\n
fiduciary capacity with any of the employees of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15743\/09 & Connected
\nCases
\n                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
Organisaion. Relationship between the employer and the<\/p>\n
employee is normally contractual or in certain cases, it<\/p>\n
could be regulated by statutory rules. Of course, there<\/p>\n
could be certain information passed by an employee to an<\/p>\n
employer which may have to be retained by the employer<\/p>\n
without disclosure.        Similarly, there could be certain<\/p>\n
information about the employer that is in the possession of<\/p>\n
the employee and retention of such information without<\/p>\n
disclosure, may also be warranted. This would, in certain<\/p>\n
given cases,      bring into existence a fiducial relationship<\/p>\n
between the employer and the employee.           But that is<\/p>\n
different from contending that the relationship between an<\/p>\n
employer and employee in any given case, is fiduciary in<\/p>\n
character.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12. Obviously, the assessment reports of the employee,<\/p>\n
who himself was an applicant under the Act cannot be<\/p>\n
withheld by any employer who is otherwise comprehended<\/p>\n
under the Act. The disclosure of such information is not<\/p>\n
exempted and I should say that the learned senior counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner      has,   fairly, not taken up any such<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15743\/09 & Connected
\nCases
\n                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
contention. Further more, order of the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
in the present case itself directed the petitioner to disclose<\/p>\n
the information relating to the 1st respondent, to her on the<\/p>\n
basis of her application and the said order was not appealed<\/p>\n
against by the petitioner before the State Information<\/p>\n
Commission.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13. The dispute is with regard to the confidential records<\/p>\n
of other employees who were considered by the Assessment<\/p>\n
Committee along with the petitioner. The proceedings of<\/p>\n
the Committee have also long since been concluded. May<\/p>\n
be the 1st respondent feels aggrieved by the proceedings of<\/p>\n
such     Committee. The information sought for by the<\/p>\n
applicant, insofar as the present case is concerned, is the<\/p>\n
Annual Confidential Report of herself and her colleagues<\/p>\n
for the period from 1980 to 1997.       Obviously such ACRs<\/p>\n
would have been considered by the Assessment Promotion<\/p>\n
Committee and it is therefore, difficult to accept the<\/p>\n
contention that they still would retain a       character of<\/p>\n
confidentiality within the Organisation. After all, such ACRs<\/p>\n
of the petitioner and her colleagues have already been<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15743\/09 & Connected
\nCases
\n                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
considered by a Committee and the information sought by<\/p>\n
the applicant obviously cannot be considered as any<\/p>\n
personal information relatable to the colleagues of the<\/p>\n
applicant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14. It might be a different case where the confidential<\/p>\n
records of the employee of an Organization might still be in<\/p>\n
the realms of a personal        information insofar as   that<\/p>\n
employee is concerned.        It is possible that any adverse<\/p>\n
remarks against any employee in the ACR could later be<\/p>\n
expunged       on     representation. There are, of course<\/p>\n
statutory rules governing such procedure in Government<\/p>\n
service and certain other public services as well. There<\/p>\n
would be standing orders or other laid down procedure in<\/p>\n
other    Organisations as well.      The disclosure of such<\/p>\n
information relating to an employee, at the instance of<\/p>\n
another employee in the same Organization might come<\/p>\n
within the purview of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. But the<\/p>\n
information sought for in the present cases do not come<\/p>\n
under any such exempted category.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15743\/09 & Connected
\nCases
\n                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
15. I also take note of the fact that there is no contention<\/p>\n
by the petitioner that the information as such sought for by<\/p>\n
the applicant, the 1st respondent is not available. For all<\/p>\n
these reasons, I am of the view that no grounds have been<\/p>\n
made out for interfering with the impugned orders passed<\/p>\n
by the 2nd respondent, the State Information Commission.<\/p>\n
     Writ petitions are bereft of merit and hence dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                      V.GIRI,
\n                                      Judge<\/p>\n
mrcs<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Centre For Earth Science Studies vs Dr.Ansom Sebastian on 28 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 15743 of 2009(K) 1. CENTRE FOR EARTH SCIENCE STUDIES … Petitioner Vs 1. DR.ANSOM SEBASTIAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCentre For Earth Science Studies vs Dr.Ansom Sebastian on 28 October, 2009 - 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\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Centre For Earth Science Studies vs Dr.Ansom Sebastian on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-12T11:48:06+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Centre For Earth Science Studies vs Dr.Ansom Sebastian on 28 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-12T11:48:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1859,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Centre For Earth Science Studies vs Dr.Ansom Sebastian on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-12T11:48:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Centre For Earth Science Studies vs Dr.Ansom Sebastian on 28 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Centre For Earth Science Studies vs Dr.Ansom Sebastian on 28 October, 2009 - 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\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Centre For Earth Science Studies vs Dr.Ansom Sebastian on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-12T11:48:06+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Centre For Earth Science Studies vs Dr.Ansom Sebastian on 28 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-12T11:48:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009"},"wordCount":1859,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009","name":"Centre For Earth Science Studies vs Dr.Ansom Sebastian on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-12T11:48:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/centre-for-earth-science-studies-vs-dr-ansom-sebastian-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Centre For Earth Science Studies vs Dr.Ansom Sebastian on 28 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/107856","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=107856"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107856\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}