{"id":108935,"date":"2008-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008"},"modified":"2017-07-14T13:29:02","modified_gmt":"2017-07-14T07:59:02","slug":"the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Deputy Director Of Education vs K.K. Jugunu on 29 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Deputy Director Of Education vs K.K. Jugunu on 29 January, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA No. 1678 of 2005()\n\n\n1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,\n3. THE STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.K. JUGUNU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :29\/01\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                                 H.L.DATTU, C.J.   &   K.M.JOSEPH, J.\n\n                                    ------------------------------------------\n\n                                                W.A.No.1678 of 2005\n\n                                    ------------------------------------------\n\n                            Dated, this the   29th day of January,  2008\n\n\n                                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
K.M.Joseph, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         Respondents   in   O.P.No.10704   of   2002   are   the   appellants.     The   writ<\/p>\n
petition was filed with a prayer to quash Ext.P1 and also for a declaration that<\/p>\n
no amount can be deducted from the pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’),  based on Ext.P1 audit remarks.<\/p>\n
         2.   The petitioner joined service as a primary school   teacher   in 1967<\/p>\n
and   she   became   Headmistress   with   effect   from   1.6.1992.     She   retired   from<\/p>\n
service on 31.3.2002.   The pay of the petitioner came to be notionally fixed in<\/p>\n
the   pre-revised   scale   at   Rs.1990\/-   in   the   Primary   Teachers’   Selection   Grade<\/p>\n
scale  of Rs.1250 – 2230.              Consequently,   her   pay   as   Headmistress   was<\/p>\n
fixed   at   Rs.2150\/-   in   the   scale   of   pay   of   Rs.1330   –   2555   based   on   the   pay<\/p>\n
revision     order   of   the   Government   with   effect   from   1.7.1997.       After   the   pay<\/p>\n
revision,   the   scale   of   pay   of   the   petitioner   was   refixed   at   Rs.2420\/-   in   the<\/p>\n
revised   scale   of   Rs.1600   –   2600   with   effect   from   1.7.1995.         Petitioner   had<\/p>\n
drawn   her   salary   on   the   basis   of   the   above   fixation   in   the   pre-revised   scale.<\/p>\n
This   came   to   be   objected   by   the   Audit   department   and   in   view   of   the   audit<\/p>\n
objection the petitioner was directed by Ext.P1 to refund a sum of Rs.94,927\/-.<\/p>\n
Petitioner   offered   her   explanation   as   is   evident   from   Ext.P2   which   is   a<\/p>\n
rectification   report   on   the   audit   remarks   of   the   Deputy   Director   of   Education.<\/p>\n
In the explanation the petitioner also pointed out that she is not in a position to<\/p>\n
repay   such   a   huge   amount   and   she   prayed   that   her   pay   fixation   may     be<\/p>\n
regularised   and   the   objection   raised   by   the   Audit   may   be   dropped.         The<\/p>\n
petitioner also relied on Ext.P3 Government order.<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1678 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
         3.     The   learned   Single   Judge   took   the   view   that   there   was   no   mis-<\/p>\n
representation   in   the   matter   of   refixation   of   her   salary   and   that   there   was   no<\/p>\n
allegation of fraud or foul play on the part of the petitioner.  The learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge also took the view that petitioner was paid salary at the pre-revised and<\/p>\n
revised   scales     for   nearly   ten   years   without   any   objection   from     the   Audit<\/p>\n
department.       Her salary was revised and fixed in the light of the pay revision<\/p>\n
order   and   she   continued   to   get   salary   till   her   retirement     on   31.3.2002.     The<\/p>\n
Court also took  the view that in the absence of any material to show that the<\/p>\n
petitioner   had   managed   to   draw   salary   after   committing   any   fraud   or   act   of<\/p>\n
misrepresentation    the   respondents   are  not   justified  in effecting   recovery  and<\/p>\n
that too after a  long lapse of  time.  Therefore, the writ petition was allowed and<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 was quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         4.   Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents in the writ petition<\/p>\n
have filed the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         5.  Heard Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Government Pleader appearing<\/p>\n
for the appellants and Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         6.    Learned Government  Pleader would point  out  that even if  it is true<\/p>\n
that there was no misrepresentation  or fraud committed by the writ petitioner in<\/p>\n
the   matter   of   fixation   of   her   pay,   it   is   not   the   law   that   the   amounts   paid   on<\/p>\n
account of a mistaken fixation cannot be recovered.  In this context he drew our<\/p>\n
attention to a Bench decision of this Court  in  Santhakumari  v.  State of Kerala<\/a><\/p>\n
(2005   (4)   KLT   649).     Therein   the   Division   Bench   after   taking   note   of   the<\/p>\n
conflicting decisions in the  matter   has considered the question   and took  the<\/p>\n
following view:\n<\/p>\n
\nW.A.No.1678 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
                 “5.   In   our   view,   if   an   employee   has   received   any<\/p>\n
        amount   contrary   to   a   statutory   provision   the   mistake   is<\/p>\n
        mutual   since   the   administration   as   well   as   the   employee   is<\/p>\n
        bound  by  the   statutory   provision.    Paying   and  receiving   the<\/p>\n
        amount contrary to the statutory provision is illegal.   When a<\/p>\n
        mistake is mutual that has to be shared by both the parties.<\/p>\n
        Law   would nullify such an action if the parties are mistaken<\/p>\n
        on the same fact  situation.    In  a case where the mistake  is<\/p>\n
        mutual,   both   the   parties   act   on   the   same   mistaken<\/p>\n
        assumption.     Person   who   pays   the   amount   is   on   the<\/p>\n
        legitimate belief that the person who receives the amount is<\/p>\n
        entitled to receive it and the person who receives the amount<\/p>\n
        is   on   the   belief   that   he   is   entitled   to   receive   the   same.<\/p>\n
        Mistake   in   such   a   situation,   in   our   view,   is   mutual.<\/p>\n
        Consequently   same   has   to   be   set   right   in   public   interest<\/p>\n
        unless there is statutory bar in recovering the amount.<\/p>\n
                 6.   Principle   laid   down   by   the   learned   Judge   in<\/p>\n
        Sivankutty Nair’s case (2005 (3) KLT 512), in our view cannot<\/p>\n
        be   of   general   application.     Reasoning   of   the   learned   single<\/p>\n
        Judge   that   the   excess   amount   paid   on   account   of   wrong<\/p>\n
        fixation of pay cannot be recovered unless the employee has<\/p>\n
        in any way contributed to the mistake, in our view, is an over<\/p>\n
        statement   of   law.     We   may   hasten   to   add,   unless   there   is<\/p>\n
        statutory bar in recovering  the amount, any amount paid by<\/p>\n
        mistake   could   be   recovered   depending   upon   the   facts   and<\/p>\n
        circumstances   of   each   case.     To   hold   that   only   in   a   case<\/p>\n
        where   employee   has   contributed   to   the   mistake   amount<\/p>\n
        could   be   recovered   cannot   be   sustained.     Facts   situation<\/p>\n
        may   warrant   a   sympathetic   consideration   but   cannot   be<\/p>\n
        accepted as a general principle of law.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.  Learned Government Pleader would also contend that the reasoning<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1678 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
and   the   consequential   conclusion   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   are   both<\/p>\n
unsustainable being contrary to the aforesaid Bench decision of this Court.<\/p>\n
        8.   Learned  counsel appearing  for the respondent  would point out that<\/p>\n
the Bench decision was pronounced subsequent to the judgment of the learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge.  Learned counsel, on the other hand, would  draw our attention to<\/p>\n
the   decision of the apex Court reported in  Aleyamma  Varghese  v.  Secretary,<\/p>\n
General Education Department  and others  (I.L.R.<\/a> 2007  (3) Ker.105).   Therein<\/p>\n
also the apex Court       was considering a case of recovery from pay effected by<\/p>\n
the State on account  of    a subsequent  discovery of    mistaken  payment.       In<\/p>\n
that case,  the  apex Court proceeded to hold  as follows:<\/p>\n
                 “A   mistake   apparent   on   the   face   of   the   record   may   be<\/p>\n
        rectified but in a matter of this nature, we would expect the State<\/p>\n
        to   react   more   magnanimously   and   not   resort   to   recovery<\/p>\n
        proceedings after a period of 17 years.         We,  therefore, in the<\/p>\n
        peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, are of the opinion<\/p>\n
        that with a view to do complete justice to the parties, the amount<\/p>\n
        sought to be recovered may not be recovered from the appellant<\/p>\n
        and we direct accordingly.  The impugned judgment is set aside<\/p>\n
        and   the   appeal   is   allowed   with   the   aforesaid   observations   and<\/p>\n
        directions.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         9.    Learned  counsel  for  the  respondent   also  drew  our  attention   to the<\/p>\n
decision   of a learned Judge of this Court reported in  Shamsuddin  v. State of<\/p>\n
Kerala<\/a>   (2004 (2) KLT 1020).  The question that arose for consideration in the<\/p>\n
said case was whether the excess   payment  should be  one made during the<\/p>\n
period   of   four   years   prior   to   the   retirement   of   the   employee.     Therein   the<\/p>\n
learned Judge was considering a case under Rule 3C of Part III of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Service Rules.   The Court took the view that it is not enough  that the excess<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1678 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
payment is detected  within four years of retirement.<\/p>\n
         10.   As far as the decision of   the apex Court relied on by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel   for   the   respondent   is   concerned,   we   notice   that,     that   was   a   case<\/p>\n
where   the   apex   Court   set   aside   the   judgment   of   this   Court   apparently   with<\/p>\n
reference to its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.  This  conclusion<\/p>\n
is inevitable in view of the          fact   that   the   Court   has   held   that   it   is   to   do<\/p>\n
complete justice to the parties  that the Court was interfering with the judgment<\/p>\n
of this Court.  Further, we notice that the Court has not laid down any principle<\/p>\n
of law which can be called as a precedent  within the meaning of Article 141 of<\/p>\n
the   Constitution.           As   far   as   the   decision   of   the   learned   Single   judge   in<\/p>\n
Shamsuddin’s   case  (supra)   is   concerned,   we   notice   that,     that   was   a     case<\/p>\n
where   the   question   which   arose   for   consideration   was   the     interpretation   of<\/p>\n
Rule 3C of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules which permits recovery from the<\/p>\n
pension   of   an   employee     in   respect   of   mistaken   payment   made   within   four<\/p>\n
years of the retirement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         11. The mistake in the present   case was discovered in the year 2001<\/p>\n
as Ext.P1 is of the year 2001.   Therefore, discovery of the mistake was made<\/p>\n
in   the   year   2001   and   that   is   much   prior   to   the   date   of   retirement   of   the<\/p>\n
respondent, that is 31.3.2002.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         12.         The   learned   counsel  appearing   for   the   respondent     would   also<\/p>\n
refer   to         the   observation   made   by   the   Division   Bench   of   this   Court   in<\/p>\n
paragraph 6 of the judgment and contend that   the principle has to be applied<\/p>\n
case by case and on evaluation of facts present in each case.<\/p>\n
         13.     We   would   think   that   the   writ   petition   was   filed   in   the   year   2002.<\/p>\n
Ext.P1   is   of   the   year   2001.     The   respondent   offered   her   explanation   as   is<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1678 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
evident   from   Ext.P2.     There   is   no   case   for   either   party   that   a   decision   was<\/p>\n
taken   on   the   explanation  offered  by  the   respondent.     In   such   circumstances,<\/p>\n
we would think that a decision on the objection of the respondent was called for<\/p>\n
and   without   waiting   for   a   decision   on   the   same     the   respondent   approached<\/p>\n
this Court with the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            14. In such circumstances we dispose of the writ appeal as follows:<\/p>\n
            i)  Writ appeal is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            ii)   The   first   appellant   will   now   consider   the   objection   filed   by   the<\/p>\n
respondent to Ext.P1 and take a decision thereon in accordance with law.  We<\/p>\n
also make it clear that it is open to the respondent to raise any further objection<\/p>\n
as supplemental objection to Ext.P1 within a period of two weeks from the date<\/p>\n
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            iii)       The   objection   filed   by   the   respondent     to   Ext.P1   as   also   any<\/p>\n
supplemental objection as the respondent may file as permitted by this Court in<\/p>\n
this   Judgment   will be    considered   by  the   first   appellant  and  a  decision  taken<\/p>\n
thereon within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                 (H.L.DATTU)<\/p>\n
                                                                               CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                                                               (K.M.JOSEPH)<\/p>\n
                                                                                     JUDGE<\/p>\n
vns<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Deputy Director Of Education vs K.K. Jugunu on 29 January, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA No. 1678 of 2005() 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, … Petitioner 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, Vs 1. K.K. JUGUNU, … Respondent For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT […]<\/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-108935","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Deputy Director Of Education vs K.K. Jugunu on 29 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Deputy Director Of Education vs K.K. Jugunu on 29 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-14T07:59:02+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Deputy Director Of Education vs K.K. Jugunu on 29 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-14T07:59:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1728,\"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\\\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008\",\"name\":\"The Deputy Director Of Education vs K.K. Jugunu on 29 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-14T07:59:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Deputy Director Of Education vs K.K. Jugunu on 29 January, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Deputy Director Of Education vs K.K. Jugunu on 29 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Deputy Director Of Education vs K.K. Jugunu on 29 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-14T07:59:02+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Deputy Director Of Education vs K.K. Jugunu on 29 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-14T07:59:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008"},"wordCount":1728,"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\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008","name":"The Deputy Director Of Education vs K.K. Jugunu on 29 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-14T07:59:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-deputy-director-of-education-vs-k-k-jugunu-on-29-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Deputy Director Of Education vs K.K. Jugunu on 29 January, 2008"}]},{"@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\/108935","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=108935"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108935\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108935"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108935"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108935"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}