{"id":166768,"date":"2007-01-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007"},"modified":"2015-11-26T01:48:59","modified_gmt":"2015-11-25T20:18:59","slug":"sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Sheena K.Oommen vs The Principal on 9 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sheena K.Oommen vs The Principal on 9 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA No. 321 of 2006()\n\n\n1. SHEENA K.OOMMEN, D\/O.K.KOCHUTHOMMAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. NITHIN PRAKASH, S\/O.DR.JAYAPRAKASH,\n3. REJINA M., D\/O.MYTHEEN KUNJU E.,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE PRINCIPAL,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE PRINCIPAL,\n\n3. COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION,\n\n4. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE HIGHER\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :09\/01\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n                 (V.K.BALI, C.J &  M.RAMACHANDRAN, J)\n\n          ----------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n                           W.A.No. 321 of 2006\n\n\n         -----------------------------------------------------------------\n\n               Dated this the 9th day of January, 2007\n\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Ramachandran,J:\n<\/p>\n
        Petitioners   in   W.P.(C).No.24459   of   2005   could   not<\/p>\n
succeed   in   contending   that   the   liquidated   damages   of<\/p>\n
Rs.one   lakh   each,   levied   from   them   by   the   Government,<\/p>\n
required to be refunded, since the learned single Judge took<\/p>\n
a view that their claims were not sustainable as admissible<\/p>\n
by   clause   12.2.1   of  the   prospectus,   which   had   been   issued<\/p>\n
by   the   Government,   for   admission   to   Professional   Degree<\/p>\n
Courses for the year 2004.   The learned single Judge found<\/p>\n
that   clause   12.2.6   were   to   govern   their   cases   and   the<\/p>\n
damages   were   rightly   claimed   and   required   to   be   paid.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved  by the judgment dated   12-01-2006,  the present<\/p>\n
appeal   has   been   filed.               They   are   undergoing   the<\/p>\n
M.B.B.S.Course in the Co-operative Medical College, Kochi,<\/p>\n
now.\n<\/p>\n
[WA No.321 of 2006]                     -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
       2.        The   appellants   contend   that   as   a   condition   for<\/p>\n
issue   of   the   Transfer   Certificate   such   payment   had   been<\/p>\n
insisted  upon   and   against  their   will   and   overlooking   the  law<\/p>\n
and   equity,   such   payment   was   received   by   Government   and<\/p>\n
this   is   to   be   declared   as   unauthorised.     The   representations<\/p>\n
requesting for a review were rejected in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
                    “I   am   to   invite   your   attention   to   the<\/p>\n
             reference   cited.     Admission   against   Government<\/p>\n
             Quota and Management Quota are different.  The<\/p>\n
             candidates   have   relinquished   admission   against<\/p>\n
             Govt.Quota   and   sought   admission   against<\/p>\n
             Management   Quota   in   a   different   College   in   a<\/p>\n
             different stream.   Therefore, the request cannot<\/p>\n
             be considered”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       3.        On   behalf   of   the   appellants,   Smt.R.Ranjanie<\/p>\n
counsel submits that the learned single Judge had  failed to go<\/p>\n
deeper   into   the   question   and   the   excuse   supplied   by   the<\/p>\n
respondents   have   been   accepted   without   any   serious<\/p>\n
consideration.\n<\/p>\n
       4.        Taking   notice   of   the   extensive   arguments   that<\/p>\n
have forthcome, we think it will be appropriate to examine the<\/p>\n
matter   in   some   detail.     The   first   appellant\/Ist   petitioner   had<\/p>\n
[WA No.321 of 2006]                   -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
appeared in the common entrance test and having secured a<\/p>\n
rank of 1010 stood allotted to the Government Dental College,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram   for   BDS   Course.     Such   allotment   had<\/p>\n
been made by the  Commissioner  for  Entrance Examinations.\n<\/p>\n
The   second   appellant\/2nd        petitioner,   who   secured   rank<\/p>\n
No.1036 and the third appellant, who had been allotted rank<\/p>\n
No.1061,   were   similarly   allotted   to   Government   Dental<\/p>\n
College, Kottayam for undergoing the BDS Course.  They had<\/p>\n
joined the Colleges and had remitted the fee for the Course,<\/p>\n
but as they were desirous of securing admission for the MBBS<\/p>\n
Course, had been looking out and had come across instances,<\/p>\n
where persons who had secured ranks lower than them, had<\/p>\n
been accommodated in other self financing colleges, although<\/p>\n
not   Government   Colleges   as   such.     At   their   instance,   a   writ<\/p>\n
petition had also been got filed as W.P.(C).No.26260 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n
They   had   challenged   the   selection   of   students   to   the   50%<\/p>\n
Management   Quota   seats   in   the   Co-operative   Medical<\/p>\n
College,   Kochi   and   Academy   of   Medical   Science,   Pariyaram.\n<\/p>\n
The   prospectus,   referred   to   earlier,   provided   that   in   such<\/p>\n
Colleges   50%   of   the   seats   were   to   be   earmarked   for<\/p>\n
Government   Quota   from   the   State   merit   list.     50%   of   the<\/p>\n
[WA No.321 of 2006]                    -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
balance   seats   were   termed   as   Management   Quota.     This<\/p>\n
provision   had   been   incorporated  ostensibly  in   view   of   the<\/p>\n
directions   gatherable   from   the   Self   Financing   Professional<\/p>\n
College   (Prohibition   of   Capitation   Fees   and   Procedure   for<\/p>\n
Admission   and   Fixation   of   Fees)   Act,   2004   (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as the Act).\n<\/p>\n
       5.        Ultimately,   by   judgment   dated   29-09-2004,<\/p>\n
admission of students to the Management Quota made by two<\/p>\n
colleges   were   set   aside,   the   Court   finding   that   the   selection<\/p>\n
and admission  were not in conformity with Sections 3(1) and<\/p>\n
3(4) of the Act.  Appeals were filed from the said judgment, at<\/p>\n
the instance of the above institutions, but they were dismissed<\/p>\n
by a Division Bench on 01-10-2004.\n<\/p>\n
       6.       Even   prior   to   the   disposal   of   the   appeal,   taking<\/p>\n
note   of   the   directions   issued   by   the   Supreme   Court,   that<\/p>\n
admission in the Medical Colleges are to be completed by 30th<\/p>\n
of   September     2004,   on   29-09-2004   the   Division   Bench   had<\/p>\n
directed   the   candidates,   who   had   already   applied   to   the<\/p>\n
respective Colleges and having ranks higher to the candidates<\/p>\n
[WA No.321 of 2006]                   -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
admitted in the Colleges are to remit fee and get provisionally<\/p>\n
admitted to the institutions.     An extreme step also had been<\/p>\n
taken whereby an Officer  had been deputed specially for the<\/p>\n
purpose,   who   are   authorised   to   receive   the   fee   for   ensuring<\/p>\n
compliance.     The   appellants   were   not   relieved   from   the<\/p>\n
institutions   in   which   they   had   joined,   but   they   had   remitted<\/p>\n
the   required   fee   as   per   orders   of   this   Court.     In   the<\/p>\n
meanwhile, the matter had been taken up by the management<\/p>\n
to the Supreme Court and they had secured an order of status<\/p>\n
quo,   but   ultimately   the   Special   Leave   Petition   had   been<\/p>\n
dismissed. The appeal filed by the State also was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
       7.   In  due course, admission  memo had been issued by<\/p>\n
the   Co-operative   Medical   College,   Kochi   in   favour   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioners\/   appellants   and   they   were     admitted   to   the<\/p>\n
M.B.B.S.Course.     They   have   thus   been   able   to   get   an<\/p>\n
admission   commensurate   with   their   rank   position.   However,<\/p>\n
as   a   condition   for   issuing   the   transfer   certificate,   the<\/p>\n
Government had required that they were  to pay  Rs.one  lakh<\/p>\n
each as liquidated damages on the strength of Clause 12.2.6<\/p>\n
of the prospectus.\n<\/p>\n
[WA No.321 of 2006]                     -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
      8.     The contention of the appellants is that on the facts<\/p>\n
of   the   case   clause   12.2.6   was   inapplicable,   but   it   was   not<\/p>\n
accepted  by   the  learned   single   Judge.    We   may examine   the<\/p>\n
above   positions   de   novo.     Clause   12.2.6   of   the   prospectus<\/p>\n
reads as following:\n<\/p>\n
               “Levying   amount   towards   liquidated<\/p>\n
        damages   from   discontinuing   candidates:<\/p>\n
        In   the   case   if   candidates   admitted   to<\/p>\n
        Government   and   Aided   Colleges,   if   any<\/p>\n
        candidate   discontinues   the   studies   after<\/p>\n
        the   closing   of   admissions,   in   the   same<\/p>\n
        year or in subsequent years to join other<\/p>\n
        courses   or   for   other   purposes,   he\/she   is<\/p>\n
        liable   to   pay   a   liquidated   damage   of<\/p>\n
        Rs.1,00,000\/-   (Rupees   one   lakh   only)   for<\/p>\n
        MBBS,  BDS  Courses  and  Rs.50,000\/-  (Rupees<\/p>\n
        fifty   thousand   only)   for   other   courses.<\/p>\n
        In   such   cases   the   Transfer   Certificate<\/p>\n
        will   be   issued   only   after   remitting   the<\/p>\n
        liquidated            damage         to         the         authority<\/p>\n
        concerned.              Candidates   belonging   to<\/p>\n
        SC\/ST\/OEC   are   exempted   from   this   rule.<\/p>\n
        Candidates   who   are   transferred   from   one<\/p>\n
        institution   to   other   as   per   proceedings<\/p>\n
        of   the   University   concerned   are   exempted<\/p>\n
        from payment of liquidated damages”.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
A   simple   reading   of   the   above   provision   would   indicate   that<\/p>\n
the   Government   was   entitled   to   put   forward   claim   for<\/p>\n
damages.     This   is   because   candidates   who   are   transferred<\/p>\n
from   one   institution   to   other,   as   per   the   proceedings   of   the<\/p>\n
University   concerned   alone   are   exempted   normally   from<\/p>\n
payment of damages.  Payment of damages is the rule if there<\/p>\n
[WA No.321 of 2006]                               -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
is discrimination after closure of admission and exemption is<\/p>\n
the exception.   But however, reference is also to be made to<\/p>\n
clause   12.2.1   of   the   prospectus,   which   may   be   extracted<\/p>\n
herein below:\n<\/p>\n
                   “Refund\/adjustment of fees in case of<\/p>\n
        course\/college   change   by   options:   The<\/p>\n
        fees   paid   by   a   candidate   in   a   college<\/p>\n
        will   be   adjusted\/refunded   consequent   on<\/p>\n
        any   change   of   course\/institution   effected<\/p>\n
        by         the          Commissioner                  for         Entrance<\/p>\n
        Examinations,   based   on   the   candidate’s<\/p>\n
        higher   order   options.     In   the   case   of<\/p>\n
        candidates   moving   to   courses\/colleges<\/p>\n
        under   a   single   authority,   the   fees<\/p>\n
        remitted   as   Tuition   Fee,   Special   Fee,<\/p>\n
        Caution   deposit   etc.,   will   be   adjusted<\/p>\n
        and   if   there   is   any   difference   in   the<\/p>\n
        amount of fee under any of the items, the<\/p>\n
        same   has   to   be   remitted   by   the   candidate<\/p>\n
        as and when required.   In case of changes<\/p>\n
        to   course\/college   under   a   different<\/p>\n
        agency,   fresh   fee   will   be   collected   from<\/p>\n
        the   candidate   at   the   time   of   joining   the<\/p>\n
        new   institution.                          The   fees   remitted<\/p>\n
        earlier            by         the         candidate               will         be<\/p>\n
        refunded,   from   the   concerned   institution<\/p>\n
        on production of receipt for fees paid in<\/p>\n
        the   new   Professional   college   in   the<\/p>\n
        State”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
This of course speaks about the adjustment and refund of fee.\n<\/p>\n
It   inherently   has   to   be   interpreted   as   a   provision   coming   to<\/p>\n
the help  of a candidate for avoiding  payment of damages, in<\/p>\n
appropriate   cases.   Adjustment   is   permissible   consequent   on<\/p>\n
any   change   of   institution   effected   by   the   Commissioner   for<\/p>\n
[WA No.321 of 2006]                    -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
Entrance   Examinations,   based   on   the   candidate’s   higher<\/p>\n
order options.\n<\/p>\n
      9.       The   submission   forthcoming   from   the   learned<\/p>\n
Government Pleader is that this was not the case, at all as far<\/p>\n
as the appellants were concerned. Neither the Commissioner<\/p>\n
nor   the   University   were   parties   when   the   appellants   were<\/p>\n
transferred   from   one   institution   to   another.   Therefore,   the<\/p>\n
provision   for   compensating   the   loss   sustained   by   the<\/p>\n
Government requires to be obeyed in letter and spirit.  If that<\/p>\n
be the case, no interference is necessary, he submits.\n<\/p>\n
      10.      We are afraid this can possibly be only a technical<\/p>\n
argument.     In   view   of   the   judgments,   logically   it   has   to   be<\/p>\n
presumed   that   the   original   allotment   was   erroneous   and   for<\/p>\n
no   fault   of   the   appellants   and   because   of   the   procedural<\/p>\n
irregularities   of   the   self   financing   institutions,   they   have<\/p>\n
sustained   prejudice.     They   had   invoked   the   constitutional<\/p>\n
remedy   and   the   Court   had   directed   the   respondents   to   set<\/p>\n
right the mistake.  The change to the new college and course<\/p>\n
therefore was because of such directions and it is more than<\/p>\n
sufficient   circumstance   to   conclude   that   benefit   envisaged<\/p>\n
under   clause   12.2.1   of   the   prospectus   would   have   been<\/p>\n
[WA No.321 of 2006]                       -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
available   in   such   cases   as   well.     If   that   be   so,   restriction<\/p>\n
brought in by clause 12.2.6 automatically has to give way, and<\/p>\n
contextually,   the   inability   to   fill   up   the   seats   by   other<\/p>\n
candidates   becomes   irrelevant,   as   far   as   the   appellants   are<\/p>\n
concerned.   Perhaps,   Government   would   have   had   a   right   to<\/p>\n
demand   that   because   of   the   conduct   exhibitted,   ultimately<\/p>\n
they were answerable for the situation.   We do not think, on<\/p>\n
the   facts   of   the   case,   insistence   of   liquidated   damages   from<\/p>\n
the appellants was legally or equitably justified.\n<\/p>\n
       11.     The result is that the appellants will be entitled to<\/p>\n
get  refund   of the  amounts that have  been  levied  from them.\n<\/p>\n
Orders   rejecting   the   request   therefore   will   stand   set   aside.\n<\/p>\n
Within a period of two months from today, the appellants are<\/p>\n
to   be   paid   back   amounts   remitted   by   them.     However,   we<\/p>\n
make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
       The writ appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    V.K.BALI\n\n                                                            (CHIEF JUSTICE)\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                        M.RAMACHANDRAN\n\nmks\/                                                            (J UDGE)\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sheena K.Oommen vs The Principal on 9 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA No. 321 of 2006() 1. SHEENA K.OOMMEN, D\/O.K.KOCHUTHOMMAN, … Petitioner 2. NITHIN PRAKASH, S\/O.DR.JAYAPRAKASH, 3. REJINA M., D\/O.MYTHEEN KUNJU E., Vs 1. THE PRINCIPAL, … Respondent 2. THE PRINCIPAL, 3. COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, […]<\/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-166768","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSheena K.Oommen vs The Principal on 9 January, 2007 - 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\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sheena K.Oommen vs The Principal on 9 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-25T20:18:59+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\\\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sheena K.Oommen vs The Principal on 9 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-25T20:18:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1687,\"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\\\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Sheena K.Oommen vs The Principal on 9 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-25T20:18:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sheena K.Oommen vs The Principal on 9 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Sheena K.Oommen vs The Principal on 9 January, 2007 - 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\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sheena K.Oommen vs The Principal on 9 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-25T20:18:59+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\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sheena K.Oommen vs The Principal on 9 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-25T20:18:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007"},"wordCount":1687,"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\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007","name":"Sheena K.Oommen vs The Principal on 9 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-25T20:18:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheena-k-oommen-vs-the-principal-on-9-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sheena K.Oommen vs The Principal on 9 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/166768","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=166768"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166768\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166768"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166768"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166768"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}