{"id":189961,"date":"2007-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007"},"modified":"2019-01-16T03:20:15","modified_gmt":"2019-01-15T21:50:15","slug":"p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"P.K.Rout vs Indian Rare Earths Limited on 2 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.K.Rout vs Indian Rare Earths Limited on 2 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 26233 of 2005(W)\n\n\n1. P.K.ROUT, E\/NO. 911, SENIOR SECURITY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED, REPRESENTED\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR,\n\n3. THE HEAD (HRM), CORPORATE OFFICE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.T.RAVI KUMAR.\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\n\n Dated :02\/03\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                             A.K. BASHEER, J.\n\n                         --------------------------\n\n                    W.P.(C).  NO. 26233 OF 2005\n\n                            ---------------------\n\n\n                 Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2007\n\n\n                              J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
        Petitioner,   who   is   working   as   Senior   Security   Officer   in<\/p>\n
Indian   Rare   Earths   Division,   Udyogamandal   has   filed   this   writ<\/p>\n
petition with a prayer to treat him to have been appointed to the<\/p>\n
post   of   Deputy   Manager   (Security)   with   effect   from   September<\/p>\n
11, 2003, the date on which he joined the company as the Senior<\/p>\n
Security Officer.    The  grievance  of the petitioner  is that  he  was<\/p>\n
given   appointment   to   the   lower   post   of   Senior   Security   Officer<\/p>\n
with a lesser pay scale, though he had applied for a higher post<\/p>\n
and   was   in   fact   interviewed   and   short-listed   by   the   selection<\/p>\n
committee to the said higher post.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        2.     A   brief   reference   to   the   essential   facts   may   be<\/p>\n
necessary   to   consider   the   question   whether   the   petitioner   is<\/p>\n
entitled to get any relief in this writ petition.<\/p>\n
        3.     It   is   the   admitted   position   that   the   company   invited<\/p>\n
applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post<\/p>\n
of Deputy Manager (Security) in the scale of pay of Rs. 13,000-<\/p>\n
WPC NO.26233\/05                      Page numbers\n\n\n\n350-18,250\/-.     The   eligible   criterion   for   the   post   was   also\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
admittedly included in the notification, which reads thus:<\/p>\n
      “The   candidate   should   be   a   graduate   and   short<\/p>\n
      commissioned officer retired from the Indian Army atleast<\/p>\n
      in the rank of Captain and with a minimum civil industrial<\/p>\n
      security   experience   of   8   years.     Alternatively   CISF<\/p>\n
      Officers   equivalent   to   the   level   of   Captain   in   the   Indian<\/p>\n
      Army   with   minimum   of   8   years   experience   in   large<\/p>\n
      industrial undertakings could also apply”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4.   It appears that 22  candidates including the petitioner<\/p>\n
had responded to the above notification issued by the company.<\/p>\n
According to the petitioner, 6 applicants including the  petitioner<\/p>\n
were short-listed and invited for interview. Petitioner was placed<\/p>\n
at Sl.No. 3 in the select list prepared by the selection committee.<\/p>\n
It is the case of the petitioner that the said list was prepared by<\/p>\n
the   selection   committee   after   having   found   that   the   selected<\/p>\n
candidates   were   eligible   for   appointment   to   the   post   of   Deputy<\/p>\n
Manager (Security).   However, the company issued Ext.P3 office<\/p>\n
order on May 21, 2003 offering the post of Senior Security Officer<\/p>\n
in   the   scale   of   pay   of   Rs.10,750-300-16,750\/-.     It   is   beyond<\/p>\n
controversy that the petitioner accepted the offer and joined duty<\/p>\n
on September 11, 2003.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        5.     It   is   on   record   that   before   joining   duty   as   Senior<\/p>\n
WPC NO.26233\/05                  Page numbers<\/p>\n
Security   Officer,   petitioner   submitted   Ext.P4   representation<\/p>\n
before the company on May 29,2003 requesting for protection of<\/p>\n
his pay, which he had been drawing from his earlier employer viz.<\/p>\n
Hindusthan   Zinc   Ltd.,   where   he   had   been   working   as   Deputy<\/p>\n
Manager   (Security   and   Intelligence).     It   is   admitted   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner that the said request was turned down through Ext.P5.<\/p>\n
As   mentioned   earlier,   petitioner   had   accepted   the   offer   of<\/p>\n
appointment   to   the   post   of   Senior   Security   Officer   and   joined<\/p>\n
duty in September 2003.  Petitioner had subsequently completed<\/p>\n
his  probation  in September  2004.    He  continued to   work in  the<\/p>\n
company even thereafter.   This writ petition was ultimately filed<\/p>\n
by   him   on   September   2,   2005   for   getting   relief   as   mentioned<\/p>\n
above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          6. It is contented by the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioner that the respondents having invited applications for the<\/p>\n
post   of   Deputy   Manager   (Security)   and   they   having   completed<\/p>\n
the  selection process  for  the said  post  by holding interview and<\/p>\n
selecting the panel of eligible candidates for the said post, they<\/p>\n
were not justified in offering an inferior  or lesser post of Senior<\/p>\n
Security Officer to him.   Petitioner has placed heavy reliance on<\/p>\n
WPC NO.26233\/05                    Page numbers<\/p>\n
Exts. P11, P12, P13, P14 and P15 to show that the respondents<\/p>\n
had in fact completed the selection process to the post of Deputy<\/p>\n
Manager (Security) after short -listing 6 out of 22 applicants.   A<\/p>\n
perusal   of   the   documents   mentioned   above   will   undoubtedly<\/p>\n
show  that  the selection committee had been constituted for the<\/p>\n
purpose   of   selection   to   the   post   of   Deputy   Manager   (Security)<\/p>\n
and that the committee had also proceeded in that direction.<\/p>\n
        7.     Ext.P15   will   show   that   6   candidates   enlisted   therein,<\/p>\n
including  the  petitioner,  were recommended  for  being  called  for<\/p>\n
interview for the post.   Ext.P13 contains names of 5 candidates<\/p>\n
who  were   recommended   by   the   committee   for   selection   on   the<\/p>\n
basis   of   the   Bio-data   and   their   performance   in   the   interview.<\/p>\n
Petitioner’s   name   appears   at   Sl.   No.4   in   the   list   in   Ext.P13.<\/p>\n
According   to   the   respondents,   in   Ext.P13   proceedings,   the<\/p>\n
committee had recommended that Sl.No.1 in the list was eligible<\/p>\n
for   the   post   of   Deputy   Manager   (Security)   while   the   other   four<\/p>\n
candidates   including   the   petitioner   were   found   eligible   only   for<\/p>\n
the   post   of   Senior   Security   Officer.     It   is   true   that   such   an<\/p>\n
endorsement   is   seen   against   the   respective   names   of   the<\/p>\n
candidates.     But   the   petitioner   has   raised   a   contention   that<\/p>\n
WPC NO.26233\/05                     Page numbers<\/p>\n
though noting against the names of the candidates were made by<\/p>\n
somebody   at   a   later   stage   and   not   by   the   members   of   the<\/p>\n
selection   committee.   One   apparent   reason   pointed   out   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   is   that   the   handwriting   in   those   endorsements   varies<\/p>\n
from the one which appears in the same document.  Anyhow, the<\/p>\n
fact   remains   that   the   Company   had   offered   only   the   post   of<\/p>\n
Senior   Security   Officer   to   the   petitioner   and   not   the   post   of<\/p>\n
Deputy Manager (Security).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        8.     The   case   of   the   respondents   is   that   6   out   of   the   22<\/p>\n
applicants were short-listed though it was found that none of the<\/p>\n
candidates had possessed the requisite qualification as notified by<\/p>\n
the Company. While conceding that, the petitioner and the other<\/p>\n
five candidates were invited for interview for the post of Deputy<\/p>\n
Manager,   it   is   contended   by   the   respondents   that   they   did   not<\/p>\n
deem it necessary to issue a fresh notification and resort to fresh<\/p>\n
selection   process   for   the   post   of   Senior   Security   Officer<\/p>\n
apprehending   further   delay.     The   Company   wanted   to   make<\/p>\n
appointment   to   the   vacant   post   as   early   as   possible.   It   was<\/p>\n
therefore   that   the   petitioner   was   offered   the   post   of   Senior<\/p>\n
Security Officer as revealed from Ext.P3.  Petitioner had accepted<\/p>\n
WPC NO.26233\/05                    Page numbers<\/p>\n
the   offer   with   his   eyes   wide   open.     The   Company   had   made   it<\/p>\n
abundantly   clear   in   Ext.P3   itself   that   it   would   be   open   to   the<\/p>\n
petitioner either to accept the offer or reject it.   He has further<\/p>\n
informed  that   if  he  did  not  convey   his   acceptance  and  reported<\/p>\n
for   duty   before   the   date   mentioned   in   the   letter,   the   offer   of<\/p>\n
appointment would automatically be treated as cancelled.<\/p>\n
        9.  As mentioned earlier, the specific case of the petitioner<\/p>\n
is that the respondents had all along proceeded with the selection<\/p>\n
process   as   though   they   were   considering   the   eligibility   of   the<\/p>\n
candidates   for   the   post   of   Deputy   Manager   (Security).     In   this<\/p>\n
context, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to<\/p>\n
the   recommendation   made   by   the   selection   committee,   which<\/p>\n
specifically   referred   to   the   post   of   Deputy   Manager   (Security).<\/p>\n
But   it   is   asserted   by   the   respondents   in   their   counter   affidavit<\/p>\n
that   they   had   considered   the   petitioner   for   the   lesser   post   of<\/p>\n
Senior Security Officer since he did not fulfill the eligibility norms<\/p>\n
for the notified post.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        10.  The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the   petitioner   is   that   the   respondents   had   concealed   or<\/p>\n
suppressed   the   fact   that   the   selection   committee,   which   was<\/p>\n
WPC NO.26233\/05                     Page numbers<\/p>\n
constituted  by  the  respondents   themselves,   had   found   that   five<\/p>\n
candidates including the petitioner were in fact eligible for being<\/p>\n
appointed   to   the   post   of   Deputy   Manager   (Security).     If   the<\/p>\n
selection   committee   had   in   fact   made   such   a   recommendation,<\/p>\n
there   was   no   justification   on   the   part   of   the   respondents   to<\/p>\n
overlook the said recommendation and offer a lesser post to the<\/p>\n
petitioner.   In this context, learned counsel also points out that<\/p>\n
Sl.No.1 out of the five candidates recommended by the selection<\/p>\n
committee   was   in   fact   offered   the   post   of   Deputy   Manager<\/p>\n
(Security).  Learned counsel further submits that there is no clue<\/p>\n
as  to   why  such  an  offer   was   made   only   to   one   among  the   five<\/p>\n
equally five ineligible candidates.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        11. There is nothing to deny the fact that the respondents<\/p>\n
had decided to go ahead with the selection process to the post of<\/p>\n
Deputy   Manager   (Security)   in   spite   of   the   fact   that   the   short-<\/p>\n
listed   candidates   did   not   possess   the   requisite   minimum<\/p>\n
qualification.     It   is   also   borne   out   by  records   that   the   selection<\/p>\n
committee   was   given   the   impression   it   was   considering   the<\/p>\n
candidates   for   the   post   of   Deputy   Manager   (Security).     There<\/p>\n
may be some force in the contention raised by the petitioner that<\/p>\n
WPC NO.26233\/05                    Page numbers<\/p>\n
the  respondents   have  not   satisfactorily  stated  the   reason  which<\/p>\n
persuaded   them   to   alter   their   position   at   a   later   stage   and   to<\/p>\n
offer a lesser post of Senior Security Officer to the petitioner after<\/p>\n
receiving the recommendation of the selection committee.  But in<\/p>\n
my  view  all   these  contentions   raised  by the  petitioner  pale  into<\/p>\n
insignificance   not   only   because   of   the   laches   and   delay   on   his<\/p>\n
part in approaching this Court but also for the reason that he had<\/p>\n
accepted the post without any demur.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        12.  As indicated earlier, petitioner had accepted the offer<\/p>\n
on   September   11,   2003   and   had   successfully   completed   the<\/p>\n
probation in 2004.   Thereafter, he had worked in the same post<\/p>\n
for   another   one   year.     He   preferred   this   writ   petition   only   in<\/p>\n
2005.   By that time, two years had already elapsed.   If the post<\/p>\n
offered to him was carrying a lesser sale of pay as compared to<\/p>\n
what   he   had   been   getting   under   his   former   employer,   he   need<\/p>\n
not   have   accepted   the   new   job   or   atleast   he   should   have<\/p>\n
approached this Court at that time.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        13.     The   argument   now   advanced   by   the   petitioner   with<\/p>\n
regard to the impropriety or irregularity in the manner in which<\/p>\n
the   company   proceeded   with   the   process   of   selection   is   vague.<\/p>\n
WPC NO.26233\/05                    Page numbers<\/p>\n
Writing on the wall was so clear when Ext.P4 representation was<\/p>\n
rejected   by   the   respondents   at   the   earliest   point   of   time,   even<\/p>\n
before he accepted the offer.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        14.   It  is  also  significant to   note  that in Ext.P4  what  the<\/p>\n
petitioner had requested was only for parity of pay scale, which<\/p>\n
he had been drawing from his earlier employer.  He did not insist<\/p>\n
that   he   be   given   the   post   of   Deputy   Manager   (Security).     The<\/p>\n
stand taken by the respondents cannot be said to be improper or<\/p>\n
illegal,   since   the   petitioner   was   offered   only   the   post   of   Senior<\/p>\n
Security Officer. He had accepted the said post.  The respondents<\/p>\n
were bound to pay only the salary which was attached to the said<\/p>\n
post.   In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be heard<\/p>\n
to say that the respondents were not justified in refusing to pay<\/p>\n
him   the   same   scale   of   salary,   which   his   former   employer   had<\/p>\n
been paying.  Still worse, he cannot now make a demand that he<\/p>\n
should have been given the post of Deputy Manager.   Petitioner<\/p>\n
did not admittedly challenge the stand taken by the respondents<\/p>\n
that   they   were   not   prepared   to   accept   the   request   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   to   give   him   the   scale   of   pay   which   he   was   drawing<\/p>\n
under   his   former   employer.   It   is   too   late   in   the   day   for   the<\/p>\n
WPC NO.26233\/05                    Page numbers<\/p>\n
petitioner to contend for the position that the procedure adopted<\/p>\n
by   the   respondents   is   not   correct.     Petitioner   ought   to   have<\/p>\n
challenged   the   procedure   adopted   by   the   respondents   at   the<\/p>\n
earliest   point   of   time.     This   not   having   been   done,   I   am   not<\/p>\n
satisfied   that   this   is   a   fit   case   to   invoke   the   discretionary<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India.   Of course, it might have been desirable or proper for the<\/p>\n
respondents   to   invite   fresh   applications   from   eligible  candidates<\/p>\n
for   the   post   of   Senior   Security   Officer,   if   they   had   found   that<\/p>\n
there were  no  eligible  candidates  with  requisite   qualifications to<\/p>\n
hold the post of Deputy Manager (Security).   Yet again I do not<\/p>\n
propose to make any further comment on the said aspect at this<\/p>\n
belated stage.  Suffice it to say that the petitioner has been guilty<\/p>\n
of laches on his part.  Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief as<\/p>\n
prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                     A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE\n\nvps\n\n\nWPC NO.26233\/05    Page numbers\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                                 OP NO.\n\n\nWPC NO.26233\/05    Page numbers\n\n\n\n                                             JUDGMENT\n\n\n\n\n                                   21st  DECEMBER, 2006\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.K.Rout vs Indian Rare Earths Limited on 2 March, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 26233 of 2005(W) 1. P.K.ROUT, E\/NO. 911, SENIOR SECURITY … Petitioner Vs 1. INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED, REPRESENTED … Respondent 2. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, 3. THE HEAD (HRM), CORPORATE OFFICE, For Petitioner […]<\/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-189961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.K.Rout vs Indian Rare Earths Limited on 2 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\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.K.Rout vs Indian Rare Earths Limited on 2 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-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=\"2007-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-15T21:50:15+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\\\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.K.Rout vs Indian Rare Earths Limited on 2 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-15T21:50:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1983,\"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\\\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007\",\"name\":\"P.K.Rout vs Indian Rare Earths Limited on 2 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-15T21:50:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.K.Rout vs Indian Rare Earths Limited on 2 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":"P.K.Rout vs Indian Rare Earths Limited on 2 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\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.K.Rout vs Indian Rare Earths Limited on 2 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-15T21:50:15+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\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.K.Rout vs Indian Rare Earths Limited on 2 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-15T21:50:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007"},"wordCount":1983,"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\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007","name":"P.K.Rout vs Indian Rare Earths Limited on 2 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-15T21:50:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-rout-vs-indian-rare-earths-limited-on-2-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.K.Rout vs Indian Rare Earths Limited on 2 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\/189961","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=189961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189961\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}