{"id":188830,"date":"2007-03-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007"},"modified":"2014-02-11T01:45:31","modified_gmt":"2014-02-10T20:15:31","slug":"babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"Babu.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Babu.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP No. 32790 of 2000(C)\n\n\n\n1. BABU.P.\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAJU BABU\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.M.KUTTY MOOSA\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :14\/03\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                                S. SIRI JAGAN, J.\n\n                            --------------------------\n\n                           O.P.NO. 32790 OF 2000\n\n                            -------------------------\n\n           DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF MARCH, 2007\n\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       The   petitioners   in   this   original   petition   are   Staff   Nurses   in   the<\/p>\n
Health Services Department.   They are B.Sc. Nursing graduates. They<\/p>\n
originally   challenged   Ext.P2   circular   prescribing   qualifications   for   the<\/p>\n
post  of  Nursing  Tutors   in  Health  Services   Department  on  the  ground<\/p>\n
that the qualifications prescribed by Ext.P2 is a lesser qualification than<\/p>\n
what   has   been   prescribed   by   the   Indian   Nursing   Council   by   Ext.P1,<\/p>\n
which are qualifications prescribed by Regulations issued by the Indian<\/p>\n
Nursing   Council   by   virtue   of   their   powers   under   Section   16   of   the<\/p>\n
Indian Nursing Council Act 1947.   During the pendency of the original<\/p>\n
petition, the Government superseded Ext.P2 by Ext.P4 circular, again<\/p>\n
prescribing qualifications to the post of Nursing Tutor, which are lesser<\/p>\n
qualifications than what had been prescribed as per Ext.P1.  Therefore<\/p>\n
the   petitioners   have   amended   the   original   petition   and   challenged<\/p>\n
Ext.P4.  Since Ext.P2 circular is no longer in force, I need only consider<\/p>\n
the challenge of the petitioners against Ext.P4.   In Ext.P4 it is stated<\/p>\n
that   these   qualifications   are   in   accordance   with   the   qualifications<\/p>\n
O.P.32790\/2000                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
prescribed   as   per   G.O.(MS)No.74\/92\/H&FWD   dated,   21.5.1992.<\/p>\n
Under   the   said   circumstances,   the   petitioners   have   also   included<\/p>\n
prayer for quashing that Government Order also.<\/p>\n
      2.       The   petitioners’   contention   is   that   as   per   Ext.P1,   the<\/p>\n
qualifications   prescribed   for   Tutors   in   School   of   Nursing   are   as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                   “3. Tutors\/Clinical Instructors:   Master of<\/p>\n
            Nursing; if not available B.Sc\/Post-Basic B.Sc.,<\/p>\n
            even   if   this   is   not   available   a   candidate   with<\/p>\n
            Diploma in Nursing Education & Administration<\/p>\n
            or any other equivalent post-basic Diploma with<\/p>\n
            8   years   of   teaching   and   administrative<\/p>\n
            experience in Nursing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                   In   teaching   institutions   the   Nursing<\/p>\n
            Superintendent\/Deputy                                 Nursing<\/p>\n
            Superintendent\/                     Assistant         Nursing<\/p>\n
            Superintendent   should   have   the   same<\/p>\n
            qualification as the Principal and Vice-Principal,<\/p>\n
            Assistant   Nursing   Superintendent   should   have<\/p>\n
            the same qualifications as Tutors.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3.       On   the   other   hand,   in   Ext.P4   the   qualifications<\/p>\n
prescribed are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                          “I.     (1)             Post   Basic   Degree   in<\/p>\n
                   Nursing   issued   by   a   recognised   University<\/p>\n
                   and   recognised   by   the   Indian   Nursing<\/p>\n
                   Council.\n<\/p>\n
                                          Or<\/p>\n
                                  (2)   Successful completion of post<\/p>\n
                   Basic   Certificate   Course   for   Nursing<\/p>\n
                   Tutors\/Midwifery   Tutor   conducted   by   a<\/p>\n
                   recognised   institution   and   recognised   by<\/p>\n
                   Indian Nursing Council.\n<\/p>\n
                                          OR<\/p>\n
                                  (3)   Post Basic Diploma in Nursing<\/p>\n
                   issued   by   a   recognised   University   and<\/p>\n
                   recognised by the Indian Nursing council.\n<\/p>\n
                                          OR<\/p>\n
O.P.32790\/2000                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
                                (4)  Degree in Nursing issued by a<\/p>\n
                  recognised  University  in  India and  recognised<\/p>\n
                  by Indian Nursing Council.\n<\/p>\n
                                    AND<\/p>\n
                            One   year   experience   in   Nursing<\/p>\n
              gained   by   serving   in   State   Government\/Central<\/p>\n
              Government\/Quasi Government Institution.<\/p>\n
                     II.     Registration   with   Kerala   Nurses   and<\/p>\n
              Midwives Council as Nurses and Midwives.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.     Learned   Counsel   for   the   petitioners   submits   that   a<\/p>\n
perusal   of   Exts.P1   and   P4   would   show   that   the   qualifications<\/p>\n
mentioned   in   Ext.P4   are   evidently   lesser   qualifications   than   those<\/p>\n
prescribed   in   Ext.P1.     According   to   him   the   authority   to   prescribe<\/p>\n
qualifications for appointment to various posts in the Nursing faculty<\/p>\n
is   the   Nursing   Council   and   when   that   Nursing   Council   prescribes<\/p>\n
specific qualifications, the State Government has no power to dilute<\/p>\n
those   qualifications   by   prescribing   lesser   qualifications   than   what<\/p>\n
have been prescribed by the Nursing Council.   The petitioners also<\/p>\n
refers   to   the   decision   of   the   Supreme   Court   in  State   of   Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu   and   another   Vs.   S.V.   Bratheep   (minor)   and   others<\/p>\n
((2004)   4   SCC   513).     In   C.M.P.No.47414\/2001,   there   was   an<\/p>\n
order of stay dated, 4.10.01, of recruitment to the posts of Nursing<\/p>\n
Tutor  in Nursing Schools  under the respondents in violation  of the<\/p>\n
Regulations of the Indian Nursing Council.<\/p>\n
       5.     The 2nd  respondent has filed a counter affidavit.   Going<\/p>\n
by the same, I am unable to ascertain whether the 2nd respondent is<\/p>\n
supporting or opposing the original petition.   In paragraph 2, they<\/p>\n
O.P.32790\/2000                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                   “2.   It   is   submitted   that   Indian   Nursing<\/p>\n
             Council   prescribe   qualification   and   experience<\/p>\n
             required for various posts in Nursing Profession<\/p>\n
             and   State   Government   is   the   authority   to<\/p>\n
             establish   policy   decision   and   prescribes<\/p>\n
             essential qualifications for various posts in the<\/p>\n
             state   considering   the   qualifications   prescribed<\/p>\n
             by   Indian   Nursing   Council.     Indian   Nursing<\/p>\n
             Council   (INC)   is   the   authority   who   gives<\/p>\n
             recognitions   to   the   Nursing   Teaching<\/p>\n
             Institutions.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
The   averments   in   paragraph   2   quoted   above   would   mean   that<\/p>\n
according   to   the   2nd  respondent   the   authority   to   prescribe<\/p>\n
qualifications for the  Nursing faculty is the Indian Nursing Council.<\/p>\n
The   necessary   corollary   to   the   same   would   be   that   the   State<\/p>\n
Government   does  not   have   power   to  dilute  those  qualifications  by<\/p>\n
prescribing lesser qualifications than what have been prescribed by<\/p>\n
the Indian Nursing Council.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.     It   is   general   knowledge   that   in   respect   of   various<\/p>\n
professional institutions in India, the Central Government has under<\/p>\n
various   Acts   constituted   authorities   for   various   faculties   who   have<\/p>\n
been   vested   with   the   powers   to   prescribe   qualifications   for<\/p>\n
appointment   to   various   posts   under   those   faculties   and   also   for<\/p>\n
admissions to professional courses offered by those institutions.  In<\/p>\n
the   decision   of  State   of   Tamil   Nadu   and   another   Vs.   S.V.<\/p>\n
Bratheep (minor) and others ((2004)4 SCC 513), the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court had occasion to consider the question as to whether the State<\/p>\n
Government has powers to prescribe qualifications for admission to<\/p>\n
O.P.32790\/2000                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
degree   courses   in   professional   Engineering   Colleges   which<\/p>\n
qualifications   are   lesser  than  those   prescribed   by   All  India  Council<\/p>\n
for   Technical   Education   which   is   one   such   authority   constituted<\/p>\n
under a Central Act namely, All India Council for Technical Education<\/p>\n
Act   1987.    In   paragraphs   9  and   10   in  that   decision,  the   Supreme<\/p>\n
Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  “9.     Entry   25   of   List   III   and   Entry   66   of<\/p>\n
          List I have to be read together and it cannot be<\/p>\n
          read in such a manner as to form an exclusivity<\/p>\n
          in   the   mater   of   admission   but   if   certain<\/p>\n
          prescription   of   standards   have   been   made<\/p>\n
          pursuant   to   Entry   66   of   List   I,   then   those<\/p>\n
          standards will prevail over the standards fixed by<\/p>\n
          the State in exercise of powers under Entry 25 of<\/p>\n
          List   III   insofar   as   they   adversely   affect   the<\/p>\n
          standards laid down by the Union of India or any<\/p>\n
          other   authority   functioning   under   it.     Therefore,<\/p>\n
          what is to be seen in the present case is whether<\/p>\n
          the   prescription   of   the   standards   made   by   the<\/p>\n
          State   Government   is   in   any   way   adverse   to,   or<\/p>\n
          lower  than,  the  standards   fixed   by  AICTE.    It  is<\/p>\n
          no  doubt  true   that  AICTE   prescribed  two  modes<\/p>\n
          of   admission   –   one   is   merely   dependent   on   the<\/p>\n
          qualifying   examination   and   the   other   dependent<\/p>\n
          upon   the   marks   obtained   at   the   common<\/p>\n
          entrance test.   The appellant in the present case<\/p>\n
          prescribed   the   qualification   of   having   secured<\/p>\n
          certain   percentage   of   marks   in   the   related<\/p>\n
          subject which is higher than the minimum in the<\/p>\n
          qualifying examination in order to be eligible  for<\/p>\n
          admission.     If   higher   minimum   is   prescribed   by<\/p>\n
          the   State   Government   than   what   had   been<\/p>\n
          prescribed   by   AICTE,   can   it   be   said   that   it   is   in<\/p>\n
          any   manner   adverse   to   the   standards   fixed   by<\/p>\n
          AICTE or reduces the standard fixed by it?  In our<\/p>\n
          opinion,   it   does   not.     On   the   other   hand,   if   we<\/p>\n
          proceed   on   the   basis   that   the   norms   fixed   by<\/p>\n
          AICTE would allow admission only on the basis of<\/p>\n
          the marks obtained in the qualifying examination,<\/p>\n
          the   additional   test   made   applicable   is   the<\/p>\n
          common entrance test by the State Government.<\/p>\n
          If   we   proceed   to   take   the   standard   fixed   by<\/p>\n
O.P.32790\/2000                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
         AICTE to be the common entrance test then the<\/p>\n
         prescription   made   by   the   State   Government   of<\/p>\n
         having   obtained   certain   marks   higher   than   the<\/p>\n
         minimum   in   the   qualifying   examination   in   order<\/p>\n
         to   be   eligible   to   participate   in   the   common<\/p>\n
         entrance   test   is   in   addition   to   the   common<\/p>\n
         entrance   test.     In   either   event,   the   streams<\/p>\n
         proposed   by   AICTE   is   inexorable   and   that<\/p>\n
         minimum   alone   should   be                   taken   into<\/p>\n
         consideration   and   no   other   standard   could   be<\/p>\n
         fixed   even  the  higher  as   stated  by  this  Court  in<\/p>\n
         Dr.Preeti Srivastava case.  It is no doubt true, as<\/p>\n
         noticed   by   this   Court   in  Adhiyaman   case  that<\/p>\n
         there may be situations when a large number of<\/p>\n
         seats   may   fall   vacant   on   account   of   the   higher<\/p>\n
         standards   fixed.   The   standards   fixed   should<\/p>\n
         always   be   realistic   which   are   attainable   and   are<\/p>\n
         within the reach of the candidates.   It cannot be<\/p>\n
         said   that   the   prescriptions   by   the   State<\/p>\n
         Government in addition to those of AICTE in the<\/p>\n
         present case are such which are not attainable or<\/p>\n
         which are not within the reach of the candidates<\/p>\n
         who seek admission for engineering colleges.   It<\/p>\n
         is not a very high percentage of marks that has<\/p>\n
         been prescribed as minimum of 60% downwards,<\/p>\n
         but  definitely  higher  than  the  mere  pass  marks.<\/p>\n
         Excellence  in higher education  is always insisted<\/p>\n
         upon   by   a   series   of   decisions   of   this   Court<\/p>\n
         including  Dr.   Preeti   Srivastava   case.   If   higher<\/p>\n
         minimum   marks   have   been   prescribed,   it   would<\/p>\n
         certainly   add   to   the   excellence   in   the   matter   of<\/p>\n
         admission of the students in higher education.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  10.    Argument   advanced   on   behalf   of   the<\/p>\n
         respondents   is   that   the   purpose   of   fixing   norms<\/p>\n
         by   AICTE   is   to   ensure   uniformity   with   extended<\/p>\n
         access of educational opportunity and such norms<\/p>\n
         should  not   be   tinkered   with   by  the   State   in   any<\/p>\n
         manner.     We   are   afraid,   this   argument   ignores<\/p>\n
         the view taken by this Court in several decisions<\/p>\n
         including Dr. Preeti Srivastava case                that   the<\/p>\n
         State   can   always   fix   a   further   qualification   or<\/p>\n
         additional   qualification   to   what   has   been<\/p>\n
         prescribed   by   AICTE   and   that   proposition   is<\/p>\n
         indisputable.     The   mere   fact   that   there   are<\/p>\n
         vacancies  in  the  colleges  would  not  be  a  matter<\/p>\n
         which   would   go   into   the   question   of   fixing   the<\/p>\n
         standard of education.  Therefore, it is difficult to<\/p>\n
O.P.32790\/2000                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
             subscribe to the view that once they are qualified<\/p>\n
             under the criteria fixed by AICTE they should be<\/p>\n
             admitted   even   if   they   fall   short   of   the   criteria<\/p>\n
             prescribed   by   the   State.     The   scope   of   the<\/p>\n
             relative   entries   in   the   seventh   schedule   to   the<\/p>\n
             Constitution has to be understood in the manner<\/p>\n
             as   stated   in  Dr.   Preeti   Srivastava   case  and,<\/p>\n
             therefore,   we   need   not   further   elaborate   in   this<\/p>\n
             case or consider arguments to the contrary such<\/p>\n
             as   on   application   of   occupied   theory   no   power<\/p>\n
             could   be   exercised   under   Entry   25   of   List  III   as<\/p>\n
             they would not arise for consideration”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       7.       In view of the said decision, which although is in relation<\/p>\n
to   prescription   of   qualification   for   admissions   to   engineering<\/p>\n
courses,   is   equally   applicable   to   appointment   of   faculties   for<\/p>\n
teaching   those   courses,it   is   clear   that   the   authority   constituted<\/p>\n
under   the   relevant   Act   in   respect   of   professional   faculties   is   the<\/p>\n
ultimate authority to prescribe qualifications for admission as well as<\/p>\n
appointment   of   Teachers   to   the   faculties.     The   decision   would<\/p>\n
further   show   that   the   State   Government   although   can   prescribe<\/p>\n
additional   or   further   qualifications   in   order   to   further   ensure<\/p>\n
excellence,   in   the   matter   of   higher   education,   the   State<\/p>\n
Governments   have   no   power   vested   in   them   to   prescribe<\/p>\n
qualifications   which   are   lesser   than   those   prescribed   by   the<\/p>\n
statutory authority.  In this case admittedly the Nursing Council has<\/p>\n
as   revealed   in   Ext.P1,   which   is   not   under   dispute   before   me,   has<\/p>\n
prescribed   specific   qualifications   for   appointment   to   the   post   of<\/p>\n
Nursing Tutors.  Evidently the qualifications mentioned in Ext.P4 are<\/p>\n
lesser   qualifications   than   what  have   been   prescribed  as   evidenced<\/p>\n
by Ext.P1.   These  qualifications are stated to be prescribed as per<\/p>\n
O.P.32790\/2000                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
G.O.(MS)No.74\/92\/H&FWD   dated   21.5.92.     Therefore   both   Ext.P4<\/p>\n
and   the   Government   order   referred   to   therein   are   ultra   vires   the<\/p>\n
Indian Nursing Council Act 1947 and the Regulations prescribed by<\/p>\n
the   Nursing   Council   in   accordance   with   the   powers   vested   in   it<\/p>\n
under Section 16 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       8.     Accordingly   I   strike   down   Ext.P4   and   G.O.(MS)<\/p>\n
No.74\/92\/H&FWD   dated   21.5.92   on   the   basis   of   which   Ext.P4   has<\/p>\n
been issued and direct the respondents 1 and 2 that recruitment to<\/p>\n
the post of Nursing Tutor in Nursing Schools shall be made only as<\/p>\n
per   qualifications   prescribed   by   the   Nursing   Council   as   shown   in<\/p>\n
Ext.P1.     Needless   to   say,   if   any   appointment   has   been   made<\/p>\n
contrary   to   the   qualifications   prescribed   as   shown   in   Ext.P1,   such<\/p>\n
appointments would be unsustainable and liable to be cancelled to<\/p>\n
ensure which the  respondent shall take steps.   If the Government<\/p>\n
so   wish,   they   may   pass   fresh   special   rules   or   executive   orders   in<\/p>\n
accordance   with   the   regulations   prescribed   by   the   Indian   Nursing<\/p>\n
Council   or   they   can   follow   the   qualifications   prescribed   by   the<\/p>\n
Nursing   Council   for   making   appointments   to   the   post   of   Nursing<\/p>\n
Tutor.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Original petition is allowed as above.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                  S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE\n\n\nAcd\n\n\nO.P.32790\/2000    9\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Babu.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP No. 32790 of 2000(C) 1. BABU.P. … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU For Respondent :SRI.V.M.KUTTY MOOSA The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated :14\/03\/2007 O R D […]<\/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-188830","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBabu.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 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\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babu.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-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=\"2007-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-10T20:15:31+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babu.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-10T20:15:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2036,\"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\\\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007\",\"name\":\"Babu.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-10T20:15:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babu.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 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":"Babu.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 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\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babu.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-10T20:15:31+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babu.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-10T20:15:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007"},"wordCount":2036,"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\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007","name":"Babu.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-10T20:15:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-p-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babu.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 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\/188830","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=188830"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188830\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188830"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188830"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188830"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}