{"id":172201,"date":"2008-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-11-15T01:09:06","modified_gmt":"2016-11-14T19:39:06","slug":"fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Fousy.K.A.M vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 4 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Fousy.K.A.M vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 4 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 15751 of 2008(A)\n\n\n1. FOUSY.K.A.M,LECTURER, MAHATMA GANDHI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. RENGITHA.M.THOMAS,\n3. A.MANJU, LECTURER MAHATMA GANDHI\n4. SHIJI.A.C.,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION,\n\n3. JYOTHI.K,.\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :04\/09\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                                        K.T. SANKARAN, J.\n                      ............................................................................\n\n                           W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,\n\n                                  18817 & 18920 OF 2008\n\n                     ............................................................................\n                           Dated this the 4th September , 2008\n\n                                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
        Since common questions are involved in these Writ Petitions except with<\/p>\n
a slight variation in respect of subsequent events in W.P.(C) No. 15751 of<\/p>\n
2008, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.<\/p>\n
The documents referred to in this judgment are as marked in W.P.(C) No.<\/p>\n
15751 of     2008.    The petitioners were working as Lecturers in the various<\/p>\n
centres of University College of Teacher Education under the Mahatma Gandhi<\/p>\n
University.    Mahatma Gandhi University started                                      various self financing<\/p>\n
institutions. It is stated that the University has 12 centres of University College<\/p>\n
of Teacher Education for conducting teacher’s training course. The centres are<\/p>\n
being run under the Self Financing Scheme.                                The norms stipulated by the<\/p>\n
National Council for Teacher Education govern these institutions. It is stated<\/p>\n
that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to a valid process of selection after<\/p>\n
publishing advertisements in various Malayalam dailies.                                           The petitioners<\/p>\n
executed bonds in favour of the University at the time of their engagement as<\/p>\n
Lecturers on contract basis.\n<\/p>\n
        2. As per the terms of the agreement , the lecturer of University College<\/p>\n
of Teacher Education would be paid                      a consolidated monthly remuneration of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,<\/p>\n
18817 & 18920 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.8,000\/- and the period of appointment is one year with effect from the date<\/p>\n
mentioned in the agreement. It is stated in the agreement that the appointment<\/p>\n
would be terminable on completion of the B.Ed course of one year or on<\/p>\n
expiry of the period    of one year     from the date noted in the agreement,<\/p>\n
whichever is earlier unless otherwise renewed by the University.     Clause 7 of<\/p>\n
the agreement reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
             “7. After termination of the contract, the Lecturer shall not<\/p>\n
             be entitled to any claim for re-employment , retirement<\/p>\n
             benefits or any other benefits on account of the service<\/p>\n
             rendered by him\/her. Provided that either party hereto<\/p>\n
             shall be at liberty to terminate this agreement on giving<\/p>\n
             the other party one month’s notice in writing provided<\/p>\n
             also that in cases of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty<\/p>\n
             or violation of any terms of this agreement, the University<\/p>\n
             may terminate this agreement forthwith without notice or<\/p>\n
             compensation in lieu of notice , on paying the Lecturer<\/p>\n
             the proportion of consolidated remuneration due upto the<\/p>\n
             date of termination. In respect of any matter in regard to<\/p>\n
             which no provision has been made in this agreement, the<\/p>\n
             provisions of the Kerala Service Rules shall apply to the<\/p>\n
             extent to which they are applicable to the service hereby<\/p>\n
             provided for and the decision of the University as to their<\/p>\n
             applicability shall be final.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,<\/p>\n
18817 & 18920 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
        3. It is stated that though the B.Ed batch for 2007 ended in December,<\/p>\n
2007, the petitioners were permitted to continue in service.    According to the<\/p>\n
petitioners that was an indication that the service of the petitioners were not<\/p>\n
terminated on completion of B.Ed batch for the year. It is also stated that the<\/p>\n
first respondent University had directed the petitioners to execute fresh bonds<\/p>\n
with effect from January, 2008. The Southern Regional Committee, Bangalore<\/p>\n
of the NCTE inspected the 12 centres of          University Colleges of Teacher<\/p>\n
Education conducted by the first respondent University. It is stated that after the<\/p>\n
inspection, the University was intimated that recognition of the three centres<\/p>\n
would be withdrawn. The intake of students in seven out of nine remaining<\/p>\n
centres was directed to be reduced by the Committee. The University has filed<\/p>\n
appeals challenging the decision of the Committee . The appeals are pending.<\/p>\n
        4. The petitioners state that since the intake of students for the year<\/p>\n
2008 was reduced in view of the direction issued by the Southern Regional<\/p>\n
Committee, Bangalore, the Syndicate of the first respondent University took a<\/p>\n
decision to bring down the number of teachers in the various centres of<\/p>\n
University College of Teacher Education to make the student teacher ratio in<\/p>\n
tune with Ext. P1 norms. The petitioners state that in purported implementation<\/p>\n
of Ext.P1 norms, Ext. P3 order dated 21.05.2008 was issued by the first<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,<\/p>\n
18817 & 18920 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent University terminating the        service of 26 Lecturers working on<\/p>\n
contract basis. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging Ext. P3 order dated<\/p>\n
21.05.2008<\/p>\n
       5. The first respondent University has filed a counter affidavit . It is stated<\/p>\n
in the counter affidavit that the NCTE, after the inspection of the 12 centres,<\/p>\n
issued notices withdrawing recognition of three centres of University College of<\/p>\n
Teacher Education. There was also a direction to the first respondent University<\/p>\n
to reduce intake of students in seven centres. Pursuant to the said direction,<\/p>\n
there was a total reduction of 1030 seats in the Centres of University College of<\/p>\n
Teacher Education.     It is further stated in the counter affidavit that due to<\/p>\n
reduction of students, number of teachers became           surplus.     Anticipating<\/p>\n
favourable orders in the appeals filed by the University before the NCTE, the<\/p>\n
University was maintaining surplus teachers on adhoc basis even after the<\/p>\n
expiry of the contract period. Finally the Syndicate of the University resolved<\/p>\n
at   its meeting held on 22.04.2008 to retain only the required number of<\/p>\n
faculty as per the norms of NCTE. It was also decided to renew the term of<\/p>\n
contract of those Lecturers who are required to be retained and to terminate<\/p>\n
the service of the teachers on contract basis, identified as surplus, on the basis<\/p>\n
of the subject seniority starting from the juniormost.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,<\/p>\n
18817 & 18920 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
        6.   One of the contentions raised by the petitioners is that while<\/p>\n
terminating the engagement of the petitioners, their juniors were retained on<\/p>\n
contract basis by the University. This contention is replied by the University by<\/p>\n
stating that the service of some of the teachers were terminated who are<\/p>\n
identified as surplus on the basis of subject seniority and not on the basis of their<\/p>\n
date of engagement on contract basis .\n<\/p>\n
        7. Adv. Shri Mathew John, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No. 15751 of 2008 submitted that the Writ Petition, as far as it relates to the first<\/p>\n
petitioner,    has become infructuous as she has been re-engaged by the<\/p>\n
University till the next Syndicate meeting.     In the reply affidavit filed by the 3rd<\/p>\n
petitioner in W.P.(C) 15751 of 2008, it is stated as follows:<\/p>\n
               “In this context I may be permitted to submit that when<\/p>\n
               total seniority is reckoned I am entitled to have my service<\/p>\n
               from September, 2005 when I joined the U.C.T.E. in the<\/p>\n
               subject Physical Science.      Though later I changed my<\/p>\n
               subject to General Education in January, 2006. But the<\/p>\n
               following Lecturers     namely, Sajini ThomaS, U.C.T.E. ,<\/p>\n
               Nedumkandam and Jisha Baby, U.C.T.E., Kanjirappally,<\/p>\n
               who are lecturers in Physical Science and who were<\/p>\n
               appointed at a later point of time than my appointment are<\/p>\n
               now retained in preference to        me.      This is perse<\/p>\n
               discriminatory. The aforesaid conduct of the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,<\/p>\n
18817 & 18920 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
             would show that they have arbitrarily acted while deciding<\/p>\n
             the seniority of the lecturers liable for termination in Ext. P3<\/p>\n
             order. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       8. The Standing Counsel for the University submitted that as regards<\/p>\n
this objection, the University will bestow its attention and that if there is any<\/p>\n
acceptable grievance, it will be looked into within a period of one month.<\/p>\n
       9. As regards the main contention raised in the Writ Petitions, that the<\/p>\n
petitioners are entitled to continue in service as they have a legal right to<\/p>\n
continue, I do not find any substance. The petitioners were engaged on contract<\/p>\n
basis. Bonds\/agreements were executed by them at the time of entering into<\/p>\n
the engagement. As per the terms of the agreement, the period of engagement<\/p>\n
was fixed and a consolidated amount was agreed to be paid to the petitioners.<\/p>\n
The engagement of the petitioners was not on a regular basis, but it was purely<\/p>\n
on contract basis. The conditions of service as in the case of regular selection<\/p>\n
and appointment would not apply to service on contract basis. To my mind, the<\/p>\n
petitioners do not have any legal right to claim for continuance of the<\/p>\n
engagement as Lecturers on contract basis.\n<\/p>\n
       10. Adv. Shri Chandrababu, learned counsel for the petitioners in some<\/p>\n
of the Writ Petitions submitted that the reasons put forward by the University for<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,<\/p>\n
18817 & 18920 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
retaining some of the Lecturers stating that subject seniority was taken as criteria<\/p>\n
for retaining them has no substance. If the contention of the University that<\/p>\n
there was no regular appointment is accepted , the learned counsel pointed out<\/p>\n
that the contention raised by the University justifying retention of some of the<\/p>\n
juniors cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
       11. Adv. Shri T.A. Shaji, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
University submitted that the expression ‘subject seniority’ was used in a loose<\/p>\n
sense and in the ordinary parlance and that it cannot be interpreted to mean<\/p>\n
that there was a regular selection and appointment.            The nature of the<\/p>\n
employment cannot be changed only because of the decision of the Syndicate to<\/p>\n
retain some of the teachers on the basis of subject requirement.         It is for the<\/p>\n
University to decide as to whom among the teachers, who are engaged on<\/p>\n
contract basis, should be retained. The petitioners cannot challenge the right<\/p>\n
of the first respondent in the matter of exercise of its powers in this regard.<\/p>\n
       12.     For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to allow the prayers<\/p>\n
made by the petitioners. However, the grievance voiced by the third petitioner<\/p>\n
in W.P.(C) 15751 of 2008 which is referred to in paragraph 7 above will be<\/p>\n
considered as stated in paragraph 8, by the University. Accordingly, the Writ<\/p>\n
Petitions are dismissed. The dismissal of the Writ Petitions would not preclude<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 15751, 16102, 16239,<\/p>\n
18817 & 18920 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
either the petitioners from approaching the first respondent pointing out any<\/p>\n
change of circumstances or the University from re-engaging them in case of<\/p>\n
necessity.\n<\/p>\n
       Adv. Shri Chandrababu pointed out that some of the lecturers who are<\/p>\n
retained by the University do not possess the requisite qualification. It is<\/p>\n
submitted that while retaining such unqualified persons, the service of the<\/p>\n
petitioners who are having requisite qualification were terminated. Adv. Shri T.A.<\/p>\n
Shaji, learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the University<\/p>\n
would be interested in seeing that only qualified persons would be appointed or<\/p>\n
retained as Lecturers on contract basis and certainly it will be taken care of at<\/p>\n
the time of engagement of teachers on contract basis.<\/p>\n
       Writ Petitions are dismissed, however, with the above observations and<\/p>\n
directions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                        K.T. SANKARAN,
\n                                                             JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\nlk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Fousy.K.A.M vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 4 September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 15751 of 2008(A) 1. FOUSY.K.A.M,LECTURER, MAHATMA GANDHI … Petitioner 2. RENGITHA.M.THOMAS, 3. A.MANJU, LECTURER MAHATMA GANDHI 4. SHIJI.A.C., Vs 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, … Respondent 2. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION, 3. […]<\/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-172201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFousy.K.A.M vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fousy.K.A.M vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-14T19:39:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\\\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Fousy.K.A.M vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 4 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-14T19:39:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1762,\"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\\\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Fousy.K.A.M vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-14T19:39:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Fousy.K.A.M vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 4 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Fousy.K.A.M vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fousy.K.A.M vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-14T19:39:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Fousy.K.A.M vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 4 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-14T19:39:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008"},"wordCount":1762,"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\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008","name":"Fousy.K.A.M vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-14T19:39:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fousy-k-a-m-vs-the-mahatma-gandhi-university-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Fousy.K.A.M vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 4 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172201","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=172201"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172201\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}