{"id":144521,"date":"2006-05-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-05-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006"},"modified":"2016-06-05T18:57:36","modified_gmt":"2016-06-05T13:27:36","slug":"k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006","title":{"rendered":"K.P.Sudhakaran & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 May, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K.P.Sudhakaran & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 May, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: B N Srikrishna, R V Raveendran<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  9527 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nK.P.Sudhakaran & Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Kerala & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/05\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nB N Srikrishna & R V Raveendran\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(With CA Nos.9528\/2003, 9530\/2003, 9531\/2003 & 9532\/2003)<\/p>\n
RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese appeals by special leave against the judgments
\ndated 14.8.2002 of the High Court of Kerala in W.A.
\nNo.1178\/1997, WA No.1170\/1997 and WA No. 1135\/1997
\ninvolve common questions of fact and law.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe appellants and the private respondents were recruited
\nas Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in the Registration
\nDepartment, in different districts of the State of Kerala. In the
\ncadre hierarchy, the promotion post for LDCs is that of Upper
\nDivision Clerk (‘UDC’ for short).  The post of LDC is a
\ndistrict-wise post and the post of UDC is a State-wise post. In
\nother words, the unit for recruitment of LDCs is the district, and
\nthe unit for recruitment of UDCs is the entire State. A State-
\nwise seniority list of LDCs. is maintained for promotion to the
\npost of UDCs.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe Appellants were recruited as LDCs in district X. The
\ncontesting private respondents were recruited as LDCs in other
\ndistricts (say, district Y or district Z) and were transferred, on
\ntheir own request to district X. (For convenience, we will refer
\nto the appellants as ‘Local LDCs’ and the contesting private
\nrespondents as ‘transferred LDCs’). The transferred LDCs., on
\nown request transfers, were permitted to join as LDCs in district
\nX by taking the rank below the junior-most local LDCs in the
\ndistrict.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tOn 7.11.1984, the State Government drew up a State-
\nwise seniority list of LDCs with reference to their date of first
\nappointment to the service as LDCs, for the purpose of
\neffecting promotions to the next higher post (UDC). In Kerala,
\nthis is stated to be with effect from date of first effective advice
\nmade by PSC for their appointment to the service. The seniority
\nof the transferred LDCs were shown in the said list, with
\nreference to the dates of their first appointment as LDCs and
\nnot with reference to the dates of their joining in the district to
\nwhich they were transferred on their own request. Having
\nregard to the fact that they were recruited as LDCs, prior to the
\nlocal LDCs, the transferred LDCs were placed above the local
\nLDCs. If the seniority of the transferred LDCs had been fixed
\nwith reference to the date of transfer to the district to which
\nthey were transferred, they would have been placed at the
\nbottom of the seniority list on the date of transfer and their
\nposition\/rank would have been below that of local LDCs.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tAfter considering the representations received in respect
\nof the said provisional seniority list dated 7.11.1984, the
\nInspector General of Registration, Kerala (‘IG-Regn.’ for short)
\nby memorandum dated 6.4.1987 finalised the state-wise
\nseniority list of LDCs as on 1.11.1983. On the basis of the said
\nseniority list of LDCs, a provisional seniority list of UDCs. as
\non 22.2.1986 was also prepared, vide General Memorandum
\ndated 9.12.1987. The said seniority list of LDCs as also the
\nprovisional seniority list of UDCs  were challenged in O.P.
\nNo.4204\/1990 before the High Court. The High Court by order
\ndated 8.5.1990 disposed of the said petition, by directing the
\nIG-Regn. to consider  the representation given by the petitioner
\ntherein for re-fixation of his seniority.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThereafter, the Inspector General of Registration issued a
\nrevised provisional seniority list of LDCs dated 13.11.1990. In
\nthe said seniority list, the positions of transferred LDCs were
\nshown with reference to the date of their joining the new
\ndistrict, by excluding the service rendered till then in their old
\ndistrict. The transferred LDCs objected to the said change. The
\nobjections were rejected by IG-Regn. The provisional list dated
\n13.11.1990 and the order of IG-Regn. rejecting the objections,
\nwere challenged by the contesting private respondents and other
\nsimilarly placed transferred LDCs in O.P. No.11194\/1990 and
\nconnected cases.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tA learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the
\nsaid petitions by order dated 24.3.1997, holding as follows : (i)
\nthe transferred LDCs were not entitled to seniority with
\nreference to the initial date of appointment as LDCs. and their
\nseniority in the post of LDCs. has to be reckoned only from the
\ndate of their joining in the new district to which they were
\ntransferred on ‘own request’; (ii) having regard to the fact that
\nthe recruitment of LDCs was district-wise and not State-wise,
\nthe transferred LDCs cannot contend that all LDCs in the State
\nformed one unit for the purpose of seniority, nor claim any
\nbenefit in excess of what the rules conferred on them; and (iii)
\nthere was no merit in the challenge to the provisional seniority
\nlist dated 13.11.1990. However, as the IG-Regn, had not
\ndisposed of the objections filed by the transferred LDCs., by a
\nreasoned order, the Single Judge directed the IG-Regn. to
\nconsider their objections as also other objections, if any,
\nreceived in regard to the provisional seniority list dated
\n13.11.1990 and pass appropriate orders considering each of the
\nobjections and finalise the seniority list. He also directed that
\nthe promotions, if any, made on the basis of the seniority list
\ndated 7.11.1984 and further promotions shall be reviewed based
\non the seniority list to be finalized. In compliance with the said
\ndirection, the IG-Regn. considered the objections again and by
\norder dated 22.9.1997 rejected the objections of the transferred
\nLDCs. He also issued a  final seniority list of LDCs dated
\n22.9.1997 on that basis.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn the meanwhile, the order of the learned Single Judge
\nwas challenged by the transferred LDCs in W.A. No.1178\/1997
\nand connected appeals. The State resisted the appeals by relying
\non the G.O. dated 2.1.1961 and Rule 27 of Kerala State and
\nSubordinate Service Rules, 1958 (‘Rules’ for short) to contend
\nthat transferred LDCs. had to be treated as junior-most in the
\nnew district and the list dated 22.9.1967 was finalized by
\napplying the said rule. The Division Bench which heard the
\nappeals, held that having regard to GO dated 2.1.1961 and Rule
\n27, the seniority of the transferred LDCs will have to be
\nreckoned only from the date of their joining at the District to
\nwhich they were transferred on their own request. It however
\nfelt that the seniority list finalized in 1984 and the position of
\nthe transferred LDCs should not be disturbed. It held that G.O.
\ndated 2.1.1961 and the proviso to Rule 27(a) should be given
\neffect prospectively. It, therefore, allowed the appeals filed by
\nthe transferred LDCs by order dated 14.8.2002 with the
\nfollowing observations :\n<\/p>\n
“This is a case where inter-district transfers were effected
\nbefore 1984 and they were all included in the final seniority
\nlist of L.D. Clerks giving seniority from the date of which
\nthey joined duty in the parent district. We are of the view at
\nthis distance of time there is no justification in disturbing
\nthe said situation. In such circumstances we hold that the
\ndirection given by first and second respondents to revise
\nthe final seniority list published vide office General
\nMemorandum No. E4-34154\/84 dated 7.11.1984 is illegal.
\nPromotions on the basis of the said list be not disturbed and
\nG.O. (Ms) 4\/61\/PD dated 2.1.1961 and the proviso to
\nGeneral Rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate
\nServices Rules would apply only prospectively without
\nunsettling the rank and position of the petitioners. It is so
\ndeclared and Ext. P7 order (order\/seniority list dated
\n13.11.1990), would stand quashed. Rights of the parties
\nwill be regulated accordingly. Judgment of the learned
\nsingle judge will stand set aside. All the writ appeals and
\noriginal petitions are disposed of as above.”\n<\/p>\n
9.     The said order of the Division Bench is challenged by the
\nappellants who are the ‘local’ LDCs. They contend that having
\nregard to the relevant rules and the Government Orders (GOs.),
\na Government servant who is transferred from one district to
\nanother on his own request, cannot claim seniority from his
\ninitial date of recruitment in the post but only from the date on
\nwhich he is transferred on his own request to the new district.
\nAs a consequence, when a common State-wise seniority list of
\nLDCs. is prepared for promotion to the post of UDC, the rank
\nof transferred LDCs. should be shown with reference to the date
\nof their transfer to the new district on their own request, and not
\nwhen with reference to the date when they were initially
\nappointed as LDCs. They contend that the Division Bench of
\nthe High Court having accepted the said legal position, had no
\npower to direct that G.O. dated 2.1.1961 and proviso to Rule
\n27(a) of the Rules to be applied prospectively. They submit that
\nthe Division Bench having held that the transferred LDCs.
\nshould take rank below the junior-most local LDCs. as per
\nRules, committed an error in not giving effect to the said
\nfinding.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tOn the contentions urged, the following two points arise
\nfor consideration :\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tWhether the seniority of transferred LDCs
\n(transferred on own request to another unit
\n(district) in the same department) should be
\nreckoned from the date of their initial appointment
\nto the post, or from the date on which they were
\ntransferred to the new district. Whether the lower
\npost (LDC) being a district-wise post and the
\npromotion post (UDC) being a state-wise post,
\nwould make any difference to the position.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tWhether the Division Bench was justified in
\nholding that the GO dated 2.1.1961 and proviso to
\nRule 27(a) of the Rules should only be applied
\nprospectively in the case of the transferred LDCs.
\n(that is from the date of the judgment of the
\nDivision Bench), thereby giving  benefit of the
\npast service (from the date of initial appointment
\nup to date of transfer), to transferred LDCs,
\ncontrary to the said rules and GO and  denying to
\nthe local clerks the benefit of a higher position in
\nthe seniority list.\n<\/p>\n
Re: Point No. 1 :\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIn service jurisprudence, the general rule is that if a
\nGovernment servant holding a particular post is transferred to
\nthe same post in the same cadre, the transfer will not wipe out
\nhis length of service in the post till the date of transfer
\nand the period of service in the post before his transfer has to be
\ntaken into consideration in computing the seniority in the
\ntransferred post. But where a Government servant is so
\ntransferred on his own request, the transferred employee will
\nhave to forego his seniority till the date of transfer, and will be
\nplaced at the bottom below the junior-most employee in the
\ncategory in the new cadre or department. This is because a
\ngovernment servant getting transferred to another unit or
\ndepartment for his personal considerations, cannot be permitted
\nto disturb the seniority of the employees in the department to
\nwhich he is transferred, by claiming that his service in the
\ndepartment from which he has been transferred, should be taken
\ninto account. This is also because a person appointed to a
\nparticular post in a cadre, should know the strength of the cadre
\nand prospects of promotion on the basis of the seniority list
\nprepared for the cadre and any addition from outside would
\ndisturb such prospects. The matter is, however, governed by the
\nrelevant service Rules.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tWe may next refer to the relevant rules and GOs having a
\nbearing on the subject. The service of State Government
\nservants in State of Kerala are governed by the Kerala Public
\nServices Act, 1968. Section 3 provides that all Rules made
\nunder the proviso to Article 309 regulating the recruitment and
\nconditions of service of persons appointed to Government
\nservice and in force immediately before 17.9.1968, shall be
\ndeemed to have been made under the said Act and shall
\ncontinue to be in force unless and until they are superseded by
\nRules made under the Act. The Kerala State and Subordinate
\nServices Rules, 1958 (‘Rules’ for short) were made in exercise
\nof power conferred under proviso to Article 309. The said
\nstatutory Rules governed seniority and transfer of Government
\nservants. The said Rules as they originally stood, did not
\nprovide for ‘own request transfers’ and consequences thereof.\n<\/p>\n
12.1)\tThe State Government issued a GO dated 2.1.1961 in
\nconsultation with the Kerala Public Service Commission (‘PSC’
\nfor short), laying down the conditions subject to which mutual
\nor inter-departmental transfers of  Government servants from
\none unit to another within the same department, or from one
\ndepartment to another within the same subordinate service, can
\nbe ordered by the appointing authorities concerned, on request.
\nTwo of the conditions which are relevant are extracted below :\n<\/p>\n
“(1) A person transferred to a new unit will take rank below
\nthe juniormost in the category in the new unit or
\ndepartment. He will not be allowed to count his previous
\nservice towards seniority. Such transfers should not be
\nprejudicial to the legitimate interest of anyone in the
\ndepartment to which he is transferred. But he may be
\nallowed to count his previous service towards increment,
\nleave, pension, gratuity, etc. He will not be required to
\nundergo fresh probation, if he has already completed
\nprobation.\n<\/p>\n
x x x x x<\/p>\n
(4) Persons transferred from one department to another or
\nfrom one unit to another in the same department due to
\nproved administrative reasons will retain all their rights in
\nthe old unit or department, as their case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
12.2)\tThe State Government issued another G.O. dated
\n27.5.1971 providing for recruitment to the lower Ministerial
\ncadres at district level, in consultation with the Public Service
\nCommission. The said GO directed that the recruitment at
\ndistrict level through the district recruitment boards would be
\nmade subject to the following conditions :-\n<\/p>\n
“(i) No transfers will be allowed from the District to
\nanother within a period of five years from the date of
\ncommencement of continuous service;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Such inter-district transfers will be allowed only after
\nfive years and subject to the conditions laid down in G.O.
\nMS. No.4\/PD dated 2-1-61.\n<\/p>\n
x x x x x<\/p>\n
(iv) This will not affect the existing procedure where State-
\nwise promotions are involved.”\n<\/p>\n
12.3)\tRule 27 of the Rules relating to seniority was amended
\nby G.O. dated 13.1.1976 (Gazetted on 3.2.1976) inserting a
\nproviso to clause (a), providing for the consequences of an ‘on
\nrequest’ transfer. The note to the said proviso stated that the
\namendment shall be deemed to have come into force with effect
\nfrom 28.12.1960. Relevant portions of Rule 27 as amended, are
\nextracted below :\n<\/p>\n
“27. Seniority.- (a) Seniority of a person in a service, class,
\ncategory or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a
\nlower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of the
\norder of his first appointment to such service, class,
\ncategory or grade.\n<\/p>\n
xxxxxxx<\/p>\n
Provided that the seniority of persons on mutual or inter-
\nunit or inter-departmental transfer from one unit to another
\nwithin the same department or from one department to
\nanother, as the case may be, on requests from such persons
\nshall be determined with reference to the dates of their
\njoining duty in the new unit or department.”\n<\/p>\n
12.4)    The executive instructions contained in the Government
\nOrders dated 2.1.1961 and 27.5.1971 in so far as ‘own request’
\ntransfers, ceased to apply, once a provision therefor was made
\nthe statutory service rules, by amendment. The proviso to Rule
\n27(a)  of the Rules categorically provided that the seniority of
\nan employee getting transferred at his own request to another
\nunit within the same department or to another department will
\nbe determined with reference to the date of his joining duty in
\nthe new department. This proviso is an exception to the general
\nrule (contained in clause (a) of Rule 27) that seniority of a
\nperson shall be determined by the date of the order of his first
\nappointment.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe following facts are not in dispute : (i) The contesting
\nprivate respondents are transferee LDCs who were transferred
\nfrom the district in which they were appointed to another
\ndistrict, in the same department on their own request. (ii) The
\nappellants are the existing employees, that is local LDCs of the
\nsaid department in the district to which the transferee LDCs
\nwere transferred. (iii) The transferred LDCs (contesting private
\nrespondents) were senior to the appellants with reference to
\ntheir date of appointment as LDCs. But with reference to the
\ndate on which they were transferred to the new district, they
\nwill become juniors to the local LDCs (appellants). When the
\nproviso to Rule 27(a) of the Service Rules is applied, as rightly
\nheld by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, the
\nseniority of the transferred LDCs has to be reckoned only from
\nthe date of their joining duty in the new unit (or district) and
\nthey are not entitled to count their service prior to the date of
\ntheir transfer on their request.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe transferred LDCs. (contesting private respondents)
\ncontended that the GO dated 27.5.1971 stated that it will not
\naffect the existing procedure where State-wise promotions are
\ninvolved. They point out that though the posts of LDCs. are
\nDistrict-wise, as the promotion of LDCs to UDCs is State-wise,
\nthe provisions of G.O. dated 2.1.1961 will not apply, in view of
\nclause (iv) of G.O. dated 27.5.1971. It is unnecessary to
\nexamine whether clause (iv) of G.O. dated 27.5.1971 excludes
\nthe applicability of G.O. dated 2.1.1961, as neither the G.O.
\ndated 27.5.1971 nor the G.O. dated 2.1.1961 governed the
\neffect of ‘own request’ transfers, after Rule 27(a) of the Service
\nRules was amended by introducing a proviso providing for the
\nconsequences of ‘own request’ transfers. Where Statutory Rules
\ngovern the field, prior executive instructions cease to apply.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThe transferred LDCs. next submitted that the proviso to
\nclause (a) of Rule 27 will not apply, having regard to the
\nexclusion contained in clause (c) of Rule 27 which reads as
\nunder : —\n<\/p>\n
[c] Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and\n<\/p>\n
(b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to a class,
\ncategory or grade in a service on the advice of the
\nCommission shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower
\nrank as punishment, be determined by the date of first
\neffective advice made for his appointment to such class,
\ncategory or grade and when two or more persons are
\nincluded in the same list of candidates advised, their
\nrelative seniority shall be fixed according to the order in
\nwhich their names are arranged in the advice list.”\n<\/p>\n
A careful reading of clause [c] shows that it did in no way
\naffect the contents of proviso to clause (a) of Rule 27 inserted
\nby amendment by G.O. dated 13.1.1976. Clause (a) of Rule 27
\nprovided that seniority of a person in a service, class, category
\nor grade shall be determined by the date of the order of his first
\nappointment to such service, class, category or grade. Clause\n<\/p>\n
(b) provides that the appointing authority shall, at the time of
\npassing an order appointing two or more persons
\nsimultaneously to a service, fix the order of preference among
\nthem, and seniority shall be determined in accordance with it.
\nClause [c] made it clear that notwithstanding anything
\ncontained in clauses (a) and (b), where a person is appointed to
\na class, category or grade in a service on the advice of the
\nCommission, the seniority of such person shall be determined
\nby the date of first effective advice made for his appointment to
\nsuch class, category or grade and when two or more persons are
\nincluded in the same list of candidates advised, their relative
\nseniority shall be fixed according to the order in which their
\nnames are arranged in the advice list. The effect of clause [c] is
\nto clarify the date with reference to which seniority should be
\nreckoned when they are initially appointed on the advice of
\nPSC. It only means that where the appointments are from the
\nselection list published by the PSC, their seniority will be
\nreckoned\/determined by the first effective advice made for such
\nappointment by the PSC and not by the actual date of his
\nappointment by the appointing authority. Clause [c] has
\ntherefore no effect or application, over the proviso which
\nregulates subsequent ‘own request’ transfers.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tThe transferred LDCs next submitted that the intention of
\nmaking a provision that a person on an ‘own request’ transfer
\nwill be ranked as the juniormost in the new district or new unit,
\nis to ensure that the seniority of the existing employees in the
\ncategory in the new unit or district is not affected by a senior
\nperson coming from outside by transfer. It is contended that
\nwhere the promotion post is State-wise, the seniority of the
\nexisting employees in the district to which the outside employee
\nis transferred, will not be affected and, therefore, where the
\npromotion is to a state-wise post, proviso to Rule 27(a) which
\nrequires those who are transferred on ‘own request’, to give up
\ntheir seniority, will not apply. We cannot agree. The alleged
\nintention behind a provision, cannot be used to defeat the
\nexpress words of the provision. Once a statutory rule is made,
\nwithout providing any exceptions, it is not possible to carve out
\nexceptions to such rule, by judicial interpretation. Nor can an
\nexemption from application of a clear and specific rule be
\nclaimed on the ground of hardship or similar reasons. The
\nproviso to Rule 27(a) of the Rules is categorical and applies to
\nall employees transferred on own request. It does not make
\ndistinction between employees  whose promotion post is a
\nState-wise post and those where the promotion posts are
\ndistrict-wise posts.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThe learned counsel for the contesting private
\nrespondents lastly submitted that by now the appellants and the
\ncontesting private respondents have all been promoted from the
\nposts of LDC to UDC and several of them have also been
\npromoted as Sub-Registrars and the matter should not be
\nunsettled after such a long time. We find that the matter has
\nbeen continuously under litigation ever since 1990 and the
\ndelay in disposal cannot defeat the rights of appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Point No. 2 :\n<\/p>\n
18.\tThe Division Bench having held that the transferred
\nLDCs would take rank below the juniormost in the category in
\nthe district to which they were transferred, could not have held
\nthat the seniority list prepared on 7.11.1984 (wrongly giving
\ntransferred LDCs seniority from the date of initial appointment
\nas LDCs) should not be disturbed and proviso to Rule 27(a)
\nshould be given effect prospectively. The High Court has no
\npower to direct that a Rule which has been in force for several
\nyears, will be operated only prospectively, that too in a
\nproceeding where the validity of the Rule was not in challenge.\n<\/p>\n
Conclusion <\/p>\n
19.\tIn view of the above, we find that the revised seniority
\nlists dated 13.11.1990 and 22.9.1997 under which seniority of
\ntransferred LDCs. (inter-district transferees) is counted only
\nfrom the date of their joining the new district, excluding the
\nprevious service, are proper and do not call for interference.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tThese appeals are accordingly allowed. The judgment of
\nthe Division Bench of the High Court, to the extent it directs
\nthat G.O. dated 2.1.1961 and proviso to Rule 27(a) of the Rules
\nwill apply prospectively, and that the promotions made with
\nreference to the seniority list dated 7.11.1984 should not be
\ndisturbed, is set aside.  The writ petitions filed by the
\ntransferred LDCs. are dismissed. As a result of giving effect to
\nthe seniority list dated 13.11.1990 and 22.9.1997, if the
\npositions of the transferred LDCs. are altered to their
\ndisadvantage, we direct that no consequential recovery shall be
\nmade from them, on the ground of excess payment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K.P.Sudhakaran & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 May, 2006 Author: Raveendran Bench: B N Srikrishna, R V Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 9527 of 2003 PETITIONER: K.P.Sudhakaran & Anr. RESPONDENT: State of Kerala & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/05\/2006 BENCH: B N Srikrishna & R V Raveendran […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-144521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK.P.Sudhakaran & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 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\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.P.Sudhakaran & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-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=\"2006-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-05T13:27:36+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.P.Sudhakaran & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 May, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-05T13:27:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3905,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006\",\"name\":\"K.P.Sudhakaran & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-05T13:27:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.P.Sudhakaran & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 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":"K.P.Sudhakaran & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 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\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.P.Sudhakaran & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-05T13:27:36+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.P.Sudhakaran & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 May, 2006","datePublished":"2006-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-05T13:27:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006"},"wordCount":3905,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006","name":"K.P.Sudhakaran & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-05T13:27:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-sudhakaran-anr-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-11-may-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.P.Sudhakaran & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 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\/144521","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=144521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}