{"id":149687,"date":"2009-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-10-08T08:46:07","modified_gmt":"2016-10-08T03:16:07","slug":"cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Cochin Port Trust vs S. Mohandas on 20 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Cochin Port Trust vs S. Mohandas on 20 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 355 of 2007()\n\n\n1. COCHIN PORT TRUST,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. STAFF SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR\n3. DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE FOR\n4. SECRETARY,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. S. MOHANDAS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.N.SUKUMARAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :20\/07\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n               P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.\n\n                    -------------------------------\n\n                        W.A.No. 355 of 2007\n\n                    -------------------------------\n\n                   Dated this the 20th July, 2009\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Raman, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               The first appellant is the first respondent in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.25078 of 2006, which is the Cochin Port Trust.          The   writ<\/p>\n
petitioner, first respondent herein, who was working as Welfare<\/p>\n
Officer in the Cochin Port Trust, aspiring for promotion to the post<\/p>\n
of Industrial Relations Officers, which is the next higher post,<\/p>\n
applied for the same.     There was no other competing candidate.<\/p>\n
He was called for the interview by the Departmental Promotion<\/p>\n
Committee, but virtually he was not selected, which was the<\/p>\n
challenge in the writ petition.     In the hierarchy of the posts in<\/p>\n
the Welfare Department, the Welfare Inspector’s Post is perhaps<\/p>\n
the initial post available and the next promotion post is that of<\/p>\n
Welfare Officer and then the Industrial Relations Officer. The<\/p>\n
WA.No.355 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
method of appointment of Industrial Relations Officer is either by<\/p>\n
way of promotion by selection or in the absence of         suitable<\/p>\n
candidates by direct recruitment. The qualification prescribed for<\/p>\n
the post of Industrial Relations Officer is as follows:-<\/p>\n
            “Master’s   Degree   in    social   work\/Labour
\n       welfare\/Personnel Management\/Industrial Relations
\n       or Degree with Diploma in any one of the above
\n       subjects or Degree in Law with Labour laws as an
\n       elective subject.\n<\/p>\n
            Exp: 5 years in a managerial capacity dealing
\n       with Labour.\n<\/p>\n
            Desirable : Knowledge of Malayalam.”\n<\/p>\n
\nExt.P1 is the copy of the extract of recruitment rules relevant for<\/p>\n
our purpose.     The method of appointment prescribed in column<\/p>\n
11 of Ext.P1 is promotion failing which direct recruitment.     In<\/p>\n
column 12, it is also stated that the promotion has to be made<\/p>\n
from Welfare Officer with three years regular service in the grade.<\/p>\n
As a matter of fact, the petitioner’s work as Welfare Officer was<\/p>\n
quite satisfactory.     But, when the Departmental Promotion<\/p>\n
WA.No.355 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
Committee met, he was interviewed and found that he was not<\/p>\n
suitable to be selected for the post of Industrial Relations Officer.<\/p>\n
                2. The petitioner challenged the decision of the<\/p>\n
selection committee on several grounds. He contended that this<\/p>\n
was for the first time that an interview was held for the post of<\/p>\n
Industrial Relations Officer and that unless the recruitment rules<\/p>\n
so provides for conducting the interview, normally no such<\/p>\n
interview shall be insisted upon.   He also relied on Government<\/p>\n
of India’s Circular, Ext.P3. According to him, in his case alone,<\/p>\n
interview was held, which is indicative of the malafide nature of<\/p>\n
the selection.    The learned Single Judge found that so long as<\/p>\n
the post is a selection post    and in the absence of anything to<\/p>\n
show that there is a better method of selection and the<\/p>\n
Departmental Promotion Committee itself having the power to<\/p>\n
regulate their own procedures, it cannot be said to be beyond its<\/p>\n
powers     in the matter of conduct of an interview, especially<\/p>\n
taking note of the fact that it is a selection post. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
WA.No.355 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
learned Single Judge accepted the stand of the Cochin Port Trust<\/p>\n
that the Departmental Promotion Committee             shall not be<\/p>\n
deprived of its basic authority to take such steps as are necessary<\/p>\n
to assess the suitability of the candidates or the comparative<\/p>\n
merit of the candidates, unless such a step or procedure is<\/p>\n
expressly prohibited by the law that governs the selection.<\/p>\n
Turning to the next contention as to whether the interview held<\/p>\n
by the Departmental Promotion Committee,          holding that the<\/p>\n
petitioner was unsuitable, suffers from any legal infirmity, the<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge proceeded to refer to the particulars<\/p>\n
furnished in the form of a statement which showed the C.R.<\/p>\n
Gradings of the petitioner for the past several years. In 2003-<\/p>\n
2004, he was graded “excellent”, in 2004-2005 and in 2005-<\/p>\n
2006, he was graded “very good”. Thus, his performance as a<\/p>\n
Welfare Officer was not merely average, but beyond average. He<\/p>\n
also possessed the requisite qualification, viz., Basic Degree and<\/p>\n
LL.B. with Labour Law as the elective subject.             In such<\/p>\n
circumstances, the learned judge further probed into the matter<\/p>\n
WA.No.355 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
to find whether there were any convincing reasons for supporting<\/p>\n
the finding of the Departmental Promotion Committee that he<\/p>\n
was not suitable, and    in that regard, it was held that unless<\/p>\n
there exists materials to hold that he does not deserve to be<\/p>\n
selected for the post, it is rather difficult to accept the finding<\/p>\n
that he is not suitable.   It is based on the interview alone that<\/p>\n
he was denied promotion to the next higher post. According to<\/p>\n
the learned Single Judge, though the interview was held on<\/p>\n
5.8.2006 and 8.8.2006, as evidenced by Exts.R1(a) and R1(b)<\/p>\n
produced in the case, there was nothing to show what transpired<\/p>\n
at the time of interview and the manner in which the<\/p>\n
Departmental Promotion Committee assessed the suitability of<\/p>\n
the candidate by means of the interview.        Files were perused<\/p>\n
which did not show any indication as to what transpired at the<\/p>\n
time of interview. It does not show the modus employed by the<\/p>\n
members of the Departmental Promotion Committee.            It was<\/p>\n
not known from the files as to whether any questions were put to<\/p>\n
interview the candidate,      whether he answered all,        what<\/p>\n
WA.No.355 of 2007<\/p>\n
                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
answers he had given, and whether any other technic was<\/p>\n
employed to assess his ability.              Therefore, in such<\/p>\n
circumstances, the learned Single Judge found that the<\/p>\n
Departmental Promotion Committee has only made a subjective<\/p>\n
satisfaction and did not interview the candidate and the<\/p>\n
conclusion     was made in an objective manner.       The learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge even went to hold that the interview was only a<\/p>\n
farce.    In those circumstances, the interview was held to be<\/p>\n
infirm and arbitrary and a declaration was made to that effect.<\/p>\n
The learned Single Judge also directed the respondents to<\/p>\n
forthwith promote the petitioner as Industrial Relations Officer.<\/p>\n
                3.  Sri.Jayasankar A.K., the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellant, Cochin Port Trust, challenges the<\/p>\n
judgment on many grounds.           He    referred to Ext.R1(a)<\/p>\n
proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee and<\/p>\n
contended that the committee has perused the service particulars<\/p>\n
and CR dossiers of the candidate available in the feeder category.<\/p>\n
WA.No.355 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
Only the petitioner, Sri.S.Mohandas, has fulfilled the requirement<\/p>\n
of three years experience as Welfare Officer, and hence he fulfills<\/p>\n
the minimum required qualifications and experience in the feeder<\/p>\n
category.     Therefore, the Departmental Promotion Committee<\/p>\n
decided to interview him, in order to assess the suitability for<\/p>\n
Industrial Relations Officer. Thereafter, on the next day, a Board<\/p>\n
meeting was fixed and the petitioner was interviewed and<\/p>\n
proceedings were marked as Ext.R1(b).         In that proceedings, it<\/p>\n
is observed that    there was only one post of Industrial Relations<\/p>\n
Officer and the Port Trust has to discharge very vital nature of<\/p>\n
duties including dealing with all trade union matters, maintenance<\/p>\n
of cordial industrial relations, dealing with employees grievances,<\/p>\n
representing Port Management before conciliation officers,<\/p>\n
holding bilateral discussions with unions on various charter of<\/p>\n
demands of union, overall supervision of welfare, etc. and that<\/p>\n
the Departmental Promotion Committee members interviewed<\/p>\n
the candidate with a view to assess his abilities, with reference<\/p>\n
to the nature of the duties as above, and the qualities to be<\/p>\n
WA.No.355 of 2007<\/p>\n
                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
possessed by a candidate. After perusal of the service records,<\/p>\n
CR dossiers and personal interview, the committee concluded that<\/p>\n
the petitioner was not suitable    for promotion to the post of<\/p>\n
Industrial Relations Officer.   Therefore, the counsel contends<\/p>\n
that the interview was not a mere farce, but the candidate was<\/p>\n
assessed with reference to the qualities and attributes to be<\/p>\n
possessed, having due regard to the post to which selection is<\/p>\n
made, it is only thereafter that the committee found him to be<\/p>\n
unsuitable, and hence in such a situation, the decision of the<\/p>\n
expert could not have been interfered with by this Court.       He<\/p>\n
also contended that the Departmental Promotion Committee is<\/p>\n
not required to give any reason and the mere fact that the<\/p>\n
Departmental Promotion Committee did not express in so many<\/p>\n
words,       the reasons for not selecting the petitioner, will not<\/p>\n
vitiate the interview also. According to him, high officials of the<\/p>\n
Port Trust       are included in the Departmental Promotion<\/p>\n
Committee and in the absence of any other candidate competing<\/p>\n
for selection,   there cannot even be a slightest allegation of<\/p>\n
WA.No.355 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
arbitrariness against the petitioner, and there is nothing for any<\/p>\n
comparative assessment of one candidate over the other.       The<\/p>\n
only solution for the Cochin Port Trust, in such circumstances,<\/p>\n
would be go for direct recruitment. Therefore, according to him,<\/p>\n
selection conducted was in an objective manner.       True that it<\/p>\n
cannot be discernible from the files as to what were the questions<\/p>\n
and what were the answers. But in the absence of anything to<\/p>\n
show that there was a mala fide in the matter of selection, the<\/p>\n
decision rendered by such a high body, that too, after perusing<\/p>\n
the service records, CR dossiers etc. along with his performance<\/p>\n
in the interview, would leave the matter there.<\/p>\n
                4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Major<\/p>\n
General I.P.S Dewan v. Union of India and Others<\/a> (1995<\/p>\n
(3) SCC 383); State of Rajasthan v. Sriram Verma and<\/p>\n
Another<\/a> (1996 (6) SCC 493); Nutan Arvind (Smt) V. Union<\/p>\n
of India and<\/a> another (1996 (2) SCC 488) and Ravinder v.<\/p>\n
WA.No.355 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
State of Haryana (1995 Supp (4) SCC 447). He contended that<\/p>\n
even if the proceedings          of the Departmental Promotion<\/p>\n
Committee are infirm, this Court could not have directed the<\/p>\n
petitioner to be promoted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the first respondent-petitioner, supporting the judgment of<\/p>\n
the learned Single Judge and placing reliance on the decision<\/p>\n
reported in     Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu and<\/p>\n
others<\/a> (2000 (8) SCC 395), contended          that   in appropriate<\/p>\n
cases like this, this Court is not powerless and it is only<\/p>\n
appropriate that the direction to promote the candidate was<\/p>\n
rightly given by the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                6.  We have heard the parties at length. The<\/p>\n
admitted facts are that the first respondent-writ petitioner is fully<\/p>\n
qualified for the post of Industrial Relations Officer, having<\/p>\n
possessed all the requisite experience for the post.       He had<\/p>\n
excellent service records as a Welfare Officer.     His immediate<\/p>\n
WA.No.355 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
superiors who had assessed him and graded him periodically has<\/p>\n
rated him excellent and very good in the past three years of his<\/p>\n
service.    The Departmental Promotion Committee, no doubt,<\/p>\n
consists of very high officials and there is no mala fides on the<\/p>\n
part of the Departmental Promotion Committee in not selecting<\/p>\n
the petitioner. But it is seen in Ext.R1(b) that the three factors<\/p>\n
based on which the Departmental Promotion Committee came to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that he was not suitable for the post are his<\/p>\n
service records, his CR dossiers      and     interview.    When<\/p>\n
admittedly the earlier two, his service records and CR dossiers<\/p>\n
have nothing to indicate any thing against him, and as there are<\/p>\n
positive grades given in his favour,   those materials could not<\/p>\n
have gone against him. The only other factor which remain for<\/p>\n
holding him as not suitable can only be the interview.        The<\/p>\n
various qualities and attributes to be possessed for the post of<\/p>\n
Industrial Relations Officer, no doubt, has been stated by the<\/p>\n
Departmental Promotion Committee in its proceedings. But are<\/p>\n
they different from the post of Welfare Officer?   Both posts are<\/p>\n
WA.No.355 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
in the same department and the Welfare Officer’s post is a feeder<\/p>\n
category for promotion. There is only one channel of promotion<\/p>\n
and further the posts of Welfare Inspector, Welfare Officer and<\/p>\n
Industrial Relations Officer are all in the same channel.      In such<\/p>\n
circumstances, while assessing the qualities or attributes to be<\/p>\n
possessed in the given said of facts, one should satisfy that<\/p>\n
based on      records produced the qualities to be possessed are<\/p>\n
objectively assessed and they are different from the post he held.<\/p>\n
In this case, the marks awarded to him by the Departmental<\/p>\n
Promotion Committee is not known.           If, as a matter of fact, he<\/p>\n
had participated along with other candidates, necessarily, a<\/p>\n
comparative merit will have to be assessed, and it could be done<\/p>\n
only by awarding marks to different candidates who had<\/p>\n
appeared for the interview.          If the petitioner had possessed<\/p>\n
marks below the same, probably he should have been found to be<\/p>\n
unsuitable.      Unsuitability itself is a negative factor. Therefore,<\/p>\n
when there is only one candidate and to say that he is unsuitable,<\/p>\n
something more should have been available on the file to sustain<\/p>\n
WA.No.355 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
the conclusion.     The view taken by the learned Judge in such<\/p>\n
circumstances does not call for any interference.         Thus after<\/p>\n
setting aside the decision made by the Cochin Port Trust, the<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge has directed the petitioner to be promoted.<\/p>\n
Normally, this could not have been done. Even assuming in a<\/p>\n
rare case it could have been done, it should be shown that this<\/p>\n
is a rare case. In all cases whereever the promotion is denied, it<\/p>\n
will be contended as a rare case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                7. In State Bank of India and others v. Mohd.\n<\/p>\n
Mynuddin (AIR 1987 SC 1889), it was held by the Apex Court<\/p>\n
that whenever promotion to a higher post is to be made on the<\/p>\n
basis of merit, no officer can claim promotion to the higher post<\/p>\n
as a matter of right by virtue of seniority alone with effect from<\/p>\n
the date on which his juniors are promoted.       It is not sufficient<\/p>\n
that in his confidential reports it is recorded that his services are<\/p>\n
‘satisfactory’.    An officer may be capable of discharging the<\/p>\n
duties of the post held by him satisfactorily but he may not be fit<\/p>\n
WA.No.355 of 2007<\/p>\n
                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
for higher post.   Before any such promotion can be effected it is<\/p>\n
the duty of the management to consider the case of the officer<\/p>\n
concerned on the basis of the relevant materials.     If promotion<\/p>\n
has been denied arbitrarily or without any reason, ordinarily the<\/p>\n
Court can issue a direction to the management to consider the<\/p>\n
case of the officer concerned for promotion, but it cannot issue a<\/p>\n
direction to promote the officer concerned to the higher post<\/p>\n
without giving an opportunity to the management to consider the<\/p>\n
question of promotion.    But the Court is not by its very nature<\/p>\n
competent to appreciate the abilities, qualities or attributes<\/p>\n
necessary for the task, office or duty of every kind of post in the<\/p>\n
modern world and it would be hazardous for it to undertake the<\/p>\n
responsibility of assessing whether a person is fit for being<\/p>\n
promoted to a higher post which is to be filled up by selection. It<\/p>\n
is only when the process of selection is vitiated on the ground of<\/p>\n
bias, mala fides or any other similar vitiating circumstance, other<\/p>\n
considerations will arise.<\/p>\n
\n\nWA.No.355 of 2007\n\n\n                                  15<\/span>\n\n\n\n                8. A Division Bench of this Court in          Kerala\n\n<\/pre>\n
Agricultural University and another v. V.K.Gopinathan<\/p>\n
Unnithan & another (1996 (1) KLJ 257) held that the Court<\/p>\n
cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the appointment of a<\/p>\n
candidate who is included in the select list, following the decision<\/p>\n
of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. A.Lakshmikutty & Others<\/p>\n
(AIR<\/a> 1987 SC 331).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                9. In this case, it cannot be said that there was any<\/p>\n
deliberate exclusion of the petitioner from being considered.<\/p>\n
Despite the fact that he was the only candidate available, the<\/p>\n
Departmental Promotion Committee, in its proceedings on the<\/p>\n
first day, is satisfied about the qualifications possessed by him<\/p>\n
and decided to interview him.         Petitioner has no case of any<\/p>\n
personal malice against any of the Board members constituting<\/p>\n
the Departmental Promotion Committee.           It is only because of<\/p>\n
absence of records to conclude the objective assessment made<\/p>\n
that this Court has interfered in the matter. If that be so, this<\/p>\n
WA.No.355 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                  16<\/span><\/p>\n
Court ought to have left the matter to the appellant herein for<\/p>\n
interviewing the candidate among qualified hands and then to<\/p>\n
take a decision.     The second part of the direction contained in<\/p>\n
the judgment is therefore set aside.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs.<\/p>\n
                                             P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                       P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\nnj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Cochin Port Trust vs S. Mohandas on 20 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 355 of 2007() 1. COCHIN PORT TRUST, … Petitioner 2. STAFF SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR 3. DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE FOR 4. SECRETARY, Vs 1. S. MOHANDAS, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) For Respondent […]<\/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-149687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCochin Port Trust vs S. Mohandas on 20 July, 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\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cochin Port Trust vs S. Mohandas on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-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=\"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-08T03:16:07+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Cochin Port Trust vs S. Mohandas on 20 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-08T03:16:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2680,\"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\\\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Cochin Port Trust vs S. Mohandas on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-08T03:16:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Cochin Port Trust vs S. Mohandas on 20 July, 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":"Cochin Port Trust vs S. Mohandas on 20 July, 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\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cochin Port Trust vs S. Mohandas on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-08T03:16:07+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Cochin Port Trust vs S. Mohandas on 20 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-08T03:16:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009"},"wordCount":2680,"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\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009","name":"Cochin Port Trust vs S. Mohandas on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-08T03:16:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cochin-port-trust-vs-s-mohandas-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Cochin Port Trust vs S. Mohandas on 20 July, 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\/149687","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=149687"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149687\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}