{"id":179852,"date":"2007-10-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007"},"modified":"2015-05-30T02:19:45","modified_gmt":"2015-05-29T20:49:45","slug":"thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Thomas Benoy vs University Of Cochin on 16 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Thomas Benoy vs University Of Cochin on 16 October, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 28194 of 2007(F)\n\n\n1. THOMAS BENOY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. DIRECTOR,\n\n3. DEPARTMENT OF CELOS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.PAULSON THOMAS\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN,SC,COCHIN UNIVERSIT\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :16\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n\n              = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n               W.P.(C) No.28194 OF 2007-F\n              = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n            Dated this the 16th October, 2007\n\n                     J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>    The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the<br \/>\nrespondents to admit the petitioner to the First MSc<br \/>\nPhotonics (Integrated Course) against any one of the<br \/>\ngeneral category seats remaining vacant.   Petitioner also<br \/>\nseeks a declaration that the 3 vacancies occurred due to<br \/>\ndiscontinuation of course by reserved category candidates<br \/>\nis available for general candidates.\n<\/p>\n<p>    2.   After passing Plus Two CBSE examination with 85%<br \/>\nmnarks, petitioner had applied for Common Admission Test<br \/>\n2007 for admission to Engineering Courses and MSc Photonics<br \/>\n(Integrated Course), conducted by the 1st       Respondent<br \/>\nUniversity and appeared for the Test.    Petitioner&#8217;s Rank<br \/>\nnumber for B.Tech in the general quota was 5678 and that of<br \/>\nPhotonics, was 492. The 1st phase of counselling was over<br \/>\non 20.07.2007 when candidates having Rank upto 5000 were<br \/>\ncalled.   It is his contention that although for MSc<br \/>\nPhotonics a separate rank list was published, that was not<br \/>\nmade use of for counselling.      Petitioner submits that<br \/>\nunlike in the case of the first phase of counselling, in<br \/>\nthe 2nd phase of counselling, candidates were not given<br \/>\nindividual intimation and that the schedule was not<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No.28194 of 2007         2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>announced during the initial phase of allotment. According<br \/>\nto him on account of the lapses of the 1st respondent he had<br \/>\nno opportunity to know about the 2nd phase of counselling<br \/>\nwhich was conducted on 08.08.2007, when candidates having<br \/>\nrank Nos.5001 to 24999 were considered.       It is submitted<br \/>\nthat several candidates having much lower rank than the<br \/>\npetitioner were granted admission. It is further contended<br \/>\nthat even as of now, there are three vacancies and that in<br \/>\nview of the ranking that he has secured, he is entitled to<br \/>\nbe accommodated against anyone of those three vacancies.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.    Petitioner further submits that soon after the 1st<br \/>\nphase of counselling, on reaslising that there is no chance<br \/>\nof getting admission, he had joined MEPCO SHCHELNK<br \/>\nEngineering College, Sivakasi and that subsequently he got<br \/>\nExt.P7     transfer     certificate and   joined College   of<br \/>\nEngineering, Poonjar.          Still later, he got transfer<br \/>\ncertificate from this College also and joined Toc H<br \/>\nInstitute of Science and Technology. It is stated that in<br \/>\nanticipation of getting admission to MSc Photonics in the<br \/>\n1st respondent University, he obtained Ext.P4 Transfer<br \/>\nCertificate from Toc H Institute of Science and Technology,<br \/>\nand is presently awaiting admission. It is submitted that<br \/>\nsince he has lost all his avenues, on equitable grounds, he<br \/>\nshould be directed to be accommodated by the 1st respondent<br \/>\nin any one of the vacant seats now available.\n<\/p>\n<p>     4.     The University on the other hand will contend<br \/>\nthat admissions were granted from the common rank list<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No.28194 of 2007       3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>prepared for B. Tech and MSc Photonics and that among the<br \/>\ncandidates included in the common rank list, those who have<br \/>\nopted for MSc Photonics were called for counselling.<br \/>\nAccording to the University the separate ranking was<br \/>\nmaintained only for the information of the candidates of<br \/>\ntheir relative position in the ranking.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.    In so far as the complaint of the petitioner that<br \/>\nindividual notice should have been given, the university<br \/>\nsubmits that the candidates had to download their call<br \/>\nletters from the website and in the Key Informations<br \/>\nnotified in the website it was specifically stated that<br \/>\ncounselling schedule \/ admission procedure\/ list of<br \/>\ncandidates called for counselling and other details will be<br \/>\npublished only on the official website of the University<br \/>\nand that no individual call letter will be sent. Ext.R1(a)<br \/>\nis the key information notified by the 1st respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>      6.    In so far as the counselling schedule is<br \/>\nconcerned, the University would contend that it was<br \/>\npublished in the website sufficiently early and a press<br \/>\nrelease was also issued, which was published in almost all<br \/>\nleading news dailies. Exts.R1(b) &amp; (c) are the news reports<br \/>\npublished in Malayala Manorama and Indian Express regarding<br \/>\nthe 2nd phase of counselling. Ext.R1(d) is the counselling<br \/>\nschedule for the 2nd phase of counselling published in the<br \/>\nwebsite of the University. According to the 1st respondent<br \/>\nin the 2nd phase of counselling which was over by<br \/>\n20.07.2007, a large number of students had turned up for<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No.28194 of 2007      4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>admission. It is submitted that the candidates for called<br \/>\nfor purely according to their merit and that the vacancy<br \/>\nposition was also published in the website and also<br \/>\ndisplayed in a big LCD Screen installed at the Counselling<br \/>\nCentre so that the students could also ascertain the<br \/>\nvacancy position.\n<\/p>\n<p>      7.    It is submitted that despite all this the<br \/>\npetitioner did not report for the 2nd phase of counselling<br \/>\nand admissions were closed on 20.07.2007 and this writ<br \/>\npetition was filed only on 20.09.2007.          It is also<br \/>\nsubmitted that the total number of seats were 20, out of<br \/>\nwhich 13 are earmarked for General Category and the balance<br \/>\nfor Reserved Category.        According to the University<br \/>\ncandidates who have secured rank below the petitioner have<br \/>\nsecured admission and that as on date there is one vacancy<br \/>\nin the general category and the remaining are vacancies<br \/>\nearmarked for reserved category for which there is a<br \/>\nwaiting list. The 1st respondent has also produced Ext.R1(e)<br \/>\nletter from the Director stating that since more than two<br \/>\nmonths are over since starting of the Semester, students<br \/>\nshall not be admitted to MSc Photonics even if some seats<br \/>\nhave gone vacant.\n<\/p>\n<p>      8.    The main argument that was raised by the counsel<br \/>\nfor the writ petitioner is that the university ought to<br \/>\nhave given individual notice of the 2nd phase of counselling<br \/>\nand in the absence of it, the failure of the petitioner to<br \/>\nreport for admission, cannot cause any prejudice to him.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No.28194 of 2007     5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>It is also his contention that irrespective of all the<br \/>\ncontroversies, the petitioner is liable to be admitted in<br \/>\none of the vacancies at least on equitable grounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>      9.    This contention is opposed by the university<br \/>\nvehemently. According to them they have complied with all<br \/>\nthe requirement and cannot be faulted for the petitioners<br \/>\nfailure to report for the 2nd phase of counselling. It is<br \/>\nalso submitted that even if there are vacancies, since<br \/>\nclasses have already started, fresh admission cannot be<br \/>\ngranted. On these pleadings, the question that arises for<br \/>\nconsideration whether the University was bound to give<br \/>\nindividual notice to the candidates for the 2nd phase of<br \/>\ncounselling, which commenced on 8th August 2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>      10. The procedure for admission including the manner<br \/>\nin which the candidates are to be notified of the schedule<br \/>\nof counselling are matters which are governed by the<br \/>\ninformation notified by the university in its website.<br \/>\nExt.R1(a) itself makes it clear that the counselling<br \/>\nschedule\/ admission procedure\/ list of candidates called<br \/>\nfor counselling and other details will be published only on<br \/>\nthe official website of the University and no individual<br \/>\ncall letter will be sent.   The candidates also could seek<br \/>\nassistance\/ advice from the office of the 2nd Respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>      11. In addition to this, University has published<br \/>\ncounselling schedule through newspapers and from Exts.R1(b)<br \/>\n&amp;(c) it is evident that on 01.08.2007 the newspapers did<br \/>\ncarry a notification regarding the 2nd phase of counselling.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No.28194 of 2007          6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The 2nd phase of counselling was also published in the<br \/>\nwebsite, as is evident from Ext.R1(d) web page produced by<br \/>\nthe University.         Petitioner has not placed anything on<br \/>\nrecord to indicate that the University was obliged to give<br \/>\nindividual notice to candidates. Thus, the University had<br \/>\ngiven notifications in terms of Ext.R1(a) and had no<br \/>\nobligation to give individual notice to candidates. If for<br \/>\nreasons of his own, a candidate has failed to appear for<br \/>\nthe 2nd phase of counselling, the University cannot be<br \/>\nfaulted.     Therefore, the petitioner&#8217;s contention that the<br \/>\nUniversity committed an illegality in not giving individual<br \/>\nnotice to candidates like the petitioner is only to be<br \/>\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>      12. The other contention that is raised is that there<br \/>\nare still vacancies and that the petitioner should be<br \/>\naccommodated in any one of them.          University does not<br \/>\ndispute the availability of vacancies. It is submited that<br \/>\nthere is only one vacancy in the general category and that<br \/>\nthe remaining are in the earmarked for candidates belonging<br \/>\nto reserved categories for which a wait list is maintained.<br \/>\nUniversity submits that the classes have started more than<br \/>\ntwo months ago and that in view of this, it has been<br \/>\ndecided not to grant admission to any fresh student.      For<br \/>\nthis purpose the university is relying on Ext.R1(e) order<br \/>\nof the 2nd respondent.         If the University has therefore<br \/>\ntaken a policy decision not to grant any further admission,<br \/>\nirrespective of availability of the vacancies, I see<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No.28194 of 2007         7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>nothing wrong with such a decision.        It may be that the<br \/>\nUniversity has taken such a decision, on account of the<br \/>\nfact that delayed admission can only cause prejudice to the<br \/>\nstudents&#8217; community. In any case that decision of the<br \/>\nUniversity is not under challenge. Therefore, there is no<br \/>\nnecessity to consider the correctness of the contention of<br \/>\nthe petitioner that the reserved vacancies will revert to<br \/>\nthe general candidates or that the petitioner should be<br \/>\naccommodated against anyone of the vacancies now available.<br \/>\nEven if petitioner is right in his submission, he cannot be<br \/>\ngranted any relief as the University has decided not to<br \/>\ngrant any further admission.         Therefore, the submission<br \/>\nthat the petitioner is liable to be admitted to any one of<br \/>\nthe vacancies also lacks merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>      13. Petitioner has sought admission on equitable<br \/>\ngrounds as well.        As already stated so far petitioner had<br \/>\njoined three engineering colleges from where he has<br \/>\nobtained Exts.P4, P7 &amp; P8 Transfer Certificates and is<br \/>\npresently stated to be not studying in any college. While,<br \/>\nI have my sympathies with the petitioner, in view of the<br \/>\nposition as above, I am not in a position to grant any<br \/>\nrelief to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>      14. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                          ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>pr\/jan.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Thomas Benoy vs University Of Cochin on 16 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 28194 of 2007(F) 1. THOMAS BENOY, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN, &#8230; Respondent 2. DIRECTOR, 3. DEPARTMENT OF CELOS, For Petitioner :SRI.PAULSON THOMAS For Respondent :SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN,SC,COCHIN UNIVERSIT The Hon&#8217;ble [&hellip;]<\/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-179852","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Thomas Benoy vs University Of Cochin on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thomas Benoy vs University Of Cochin on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-29T20:49:45+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\\\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thomas Benoy vs University Of Cochin on 16 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-29T20:49:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1657,\"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\\\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Thomas Benoy vs University Of Cochin on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-29T20:49:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thomas Benoy vs University Of Cochin on 16 October, 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":"Thomas Benoy vs University Of Cochin on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thomas Benoy vs University Of Cochin on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-29T20:49:45+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\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thomas Benoy vs University Of Cochin on 16 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-29T20:49:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007"},"wordCount":1657,"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\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007","name":"Thomas Benoy vs University Of Cochin on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-29T20:49:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-benoy-vs-university-of-cochin-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thomas Benoy vs University Of Cochin on 16 October, 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\/179852","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=179852"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179852\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179852"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179852"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179852"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}