{"id":190829,"date":"2009-07-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-08-11T13:51:36","modified_gmt":"2016-08-11T08:21:36","slug":"m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"M.K. Leela vs Govt Of Kerala Rep. By Secretary on 10 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.K. Leela vs Govt Of Kerala Rep. By Secretary on 10 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 2342 of 2008()\n\n\n1. M.K. LEELA, H.S.A., VMALA HRIDYA HIG\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. GOVT OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,\n\n3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,\n\n4. MANAGER, VIMALA HRIDYA HIGH SCHOOL,\n\n5. SR. PHILOMINA P.S., HSA,\n\n6. NESAMMAL M, H.S.A., VIMALA\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :10\/07\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n     K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n\n                  ------------------------------\n               W.A. Nos.2342 and 2388 of 2008\n                  ------------------------------\n\n               Dated this, the 10th day of July, 2009\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Balakrishnan Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n
W.A. Nos.2342 of 2008:\n<\/p>\n
           The appellant is the writ petitioner. The brief facts of<\/p>\n
the case are the following:\n<\/p>\n
           The appellant is a High School Assistant working in<\/p>\n
the 4th respondent’s school.    Respondents 5 and 6 are also<\/p>\n
working in the same school as High School Assistants. Among<\/p>\n
them, 6th respondent is the senior most and the 4th respondent<\/p>\n
the junior most. A vacancy in the post of Headmaster arose in<\/p>\n
the school on 1.4.2001.       On the said date, only the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent was qualified. The appellant and the 5th respondent<\/p>\n
were not having the requisite 12 years graduate service. The<\/p>\n
appellant has also not cleared the obligatory tests. The manager<\/p>\n
appointed the 5th respondent as teacher-in-charge. The District<\/p>\n
Educational Officer approved the same.            The appellant<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.2342 & 2388\/08\n<\/p>\n
                               – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
challenged that order of the D.E.O. before the Director of Public<\/p>\n
Instructions.    The Director of Public Instructions, by Ext.P5<\/p>\n
order dated 5.10.2004, set aside the order of the D.E.O. and<\/p>\n
directed the appointment of the appellant as teacher-in-charge<\/p>\n
and also ordered to promote her when she completes 12 years<\/p>\n
service as High School Assistant.      The said decision was<\/p>\n
rendered based on the finding that the educational institution is<\/p>\n
not one entitled to get protection under Article 30(1) of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India. The matter was carried in revision by the<\/p>\n
manager of the school. The Government by Ext.P6 order dated<\/p>\n
7.6.2005, set aside the order of the Director of Public<\/p>\n
Instructions and upheld the approval of     appointment of the<\/p>\n
5th respondent as teacher-in-charge. The petitioner filed review<\/p>\n
petition before the Government.        The said petition was<\/p>\n
dismissed by Ext.P7 order dated 3.10.2005.        The appellant<\/p>\n
challenged Exts.P6 and P7 orders before this Court by filing<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.30984\/2005.      The said writ petition was allowed,<\/p>\n
quashing Exts.P6 and P7.     It was held that   the right under<\/p>\n
Article 30(1) of the Constitution does not extend to appointing<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.2342 & 2388\/08\n<\/p>\n
                                      – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
an unqualified person.             So, it was held that, if the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent is not entitled to be appointed as Headmistress, the<\/p>\n
appellant would be eligible for appointment.                     The relevant<\/p>\n
portion of the said judgment reads as follows:<\/p>\n
                        “….When the vacancy arose, it was open<\/p>\n
          to a minority institution to appoint any qualified person<\/p>\n
          irrespective of seniority as HM. But the right under<\/p>\n
          Article 30 does not extend to appointing a person who<\/p>\n
          is not qualified.  Certainly it is for the third respondent<\/p>\n
          to take note of the claim of sixth respondent also in<\/p>\n
          accordance with law.      If the sixth respondent    is not<\/p>\n
          found entitled to be appointed as HM, then certainly it<\/p>\n
          is the petitioner who would be eligible, as admittedly<\/p>\n
          the fourth respondent has become qualified only in the<\/p>\n
          year 2005. This is on the basis of the decision of the<\/p>\n
          Full Bench in Padmanabhan Nair’s case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        Accordingly, Exts.P6 and P7 are quashed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          There will be a direction to the third respondent to<\/p>\n
          reconsider the matter in accordance with law and take a<\/p>\n
          decision afresh after hearing all the parties, within a<\/p>\n
          period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy<\/p>\n
          of this Judgment.”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                              (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the said judgment, the Government reconsidered<\/p>\n
the matter and passed Ext.P9 order dated 4.8.2007. The<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.2342 & 2388\/08\n<\/p>\n
                                    – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
operative portion of the said order reads as follows:<\/p>\n
                        “In the light of the above facts and<\/p>\n
          circumstances, Government are pleaded to direct the<\/p>\n
          Manger, Vimalahridaya H.S., Virali to ascertain the<\/p>\n
          willingness of Smt.Nesammal to be posted as H.M. in<\/p>\n
          writing within 15 days after issuing notice and to appoint<\/p>\n
          her as H.M. with retrospective effect from 1\/4\/01, after<\/p>\n
          reverting the present H.M. Sr.Philomina, if the former<\/p>\n
          does not relinquish her claim for the post of HM.<\/p>\n
          Government also order that Sr.Philomina will continue<\/p>\n
          as HM, if Smt.Nesammal relinquishes her claim, as<\/p>\n
          contemplated in the KER.”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                             (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
By the above direction, the 5th respondent was able to continue<\/p>\n
as Headmistress on the relinquishment of the claim by the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent,     Smt.Nessammal.              Soon     thereafter,    the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent, by Ext.P13 relinquished her claim for promotion as<\/p>\n
Headmistress on 20.8.2007 with effect from 1.4.2001.                   The<\/p>\n
appellant filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P9 and also<\/p>\n
seeking consequential reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
            2.    According to the appellant, in view of Ext.P8<\/p>\n
judgment, once the 6th respondent relinquishes her claim, she<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.2342 & 2388\/08\n<\/p>\n
                               – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
has to be appointed as teacher-in-charge from 1.4.2001 and<\/p>\n
thereafter as Headmistress from December 2001, the date on<\/p>\n
which she became qualified.       It is pointed out that the 5th<\/p>\n
respondent acquired qualification only on 7.6.2005, whereas the<\/p>\n
appellant completed 12 years graduate service on 15.7.2001<\/p>\n
and became test qualified in December 2001.          By virtue of<\/p>\n
Rule 45C of     Chapter XIV-A,     of  Kerala    Education   Rules<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as, “the K.E.R.”), the appellant being<\/p>\n
the first person who became qualified, she is entitled to be<\/p>\n
appointed as Headmistress. Only if there is a qualified teacher<\/p>\n
in the school preferred by the Management, they can invoke the<\/p>\n
minority right under Articled 30(1) of the Constitution, for<\/p>\n
superseding the appellant and appointing that teacher. In this<\/p>\n
case, in the absence of a qualified and willing hand, especially in<\/p>\n
view of Ext.P8 judgment, which has become final, the appellant<\/p>\n
should have been appointed. So, the finding of the Government<\/p>\n
to the contrary in Ext.P9 is unsustainable, it is submitted.   The<\/p>\n
4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers<\/p>\n
in the writ petition. The appellant filed a reply affidavit. The<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.2342 & 2388\/08\n<\/p>\n
                               – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, upheld the claim<\/p>\n
of the management.       The learned Single Judge found that<\/p>\n
relinquishment made by the 6th respondent was to enable the<\/p>\n
5th respondent to continue as teacher-in-charge and therefore,<\/p>\n
the   appellant    cannot  stake    her   claim  based  on   the<\/p>\n
relinquishment letter of 6th respondent. Feeling aggrieved by<\/p>\n
the said judgment, this writ appeal is filed.<\/p>\n
           3.    We heard Sri.P.N.Mohanan for the appellant,<\/p>\n
learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Benny Gervasis for the<\/p>\n
official respondents    and   also   the    learned counsel   for<\/p>\n
respondents 4 and 5.      The learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition, which we<\/p>\n
have already noticed above.        The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
manager submitted that the appellant even though qualified, is<\/p>\n
unsuitable for appointment as Headmistress of a minority<\/p>\n
educational institution. Therefore, even if she became qualified<\/p>\n
for promotion earlier, she could not have been appointed.<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.2342 & 2388\/08\n<\/p>\n
                                    – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
             4. We have quoted the relevant portion of Ext.P8<\/p>\n
judgment, which has became final. Everyone including us, are<\/p>\n
bound by that.         The learned Single Judge in Ext.P8 has held<\/p>\n
that if the 6th respondent is not in the field, then the appellant is<\/p>\n
entitled to be preferred for appointment to the post of<\/p>\n
Headmistress, as the person who became qualified first, among<\/p>\n
the unqualified hands. This is also the mandate of Rule 45C of<\/p>\n
Chapter XIV-A, K.E.R. Rule 45C reads as follows:<\/p>\n
        “45C. Temporary Promotion:-(1) Where in any aided<\/p>\n
        school a qualified teacher is not available to be promoted as<\/p>\n
        Headmaster in accordance with the provisions contained in rule<\/p>\n
        44, 44A, 45, 45A and 45B the appointing authority shall<\/p>\n
        promote, the senior most teacher on the staff of the school or<\/p>\n
        the schools under the Educational Agency        as Headmaster,<\/p>\n
        temporarily.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Provided that in the case of High Schools and Training<\/p>\n
        Schools the teacher so promoted shall be the senior most<\/p>\n
        graduate teacher on the staff of the school or the schools under<\/p>\n
        the Educational Agency who has put in at least 12 years of<\/p>\n
        continuous graduate service as provided in sub-rule (1) of rule<\/p>\n
        44A of this Chapter and in the case of primary schools it shall be<\/p>\n
        the senior most teacher possessing qualifications prescribed in<\/p>\n
        rule 45 or, as the case may be, rule 45A.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (2) A teacher temporarily promoted under sub-rule (1)<\/p>\n
        shall be replaced as soon as possible by the member of the<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.2342 & 2388\/08\n<\/p>\n
                                    – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
       service who becomes entitled to the promotion under the rules.<\/p>\n
              (3) A teacher temporarily promoted under sub-rule (1)<\/p>\n
       shall not be regarded as a probationer in the higher category or<\/p>\n
       be entitled by reason only of such promotion to any preferential<\/p>\n
       claim to future promotion to such higher category.<\/p>\n
              (4)   If such person is subsequently promoted       to the<\/p>\n
       higher category in accordance with the rules, he shall<\/p>\n
       commence his probation, if any, in such category from the date<\/p>\n
       of such subsequent promotion or from such earlier date as the<\/p>\n
       appointing authority may determine without prejudice to the<\/p>\n
       seniority of others.\n<\/p>\n
              (5) The pay of the promotee shall be fixed as provided in<\/p>\n
       Rule 43A.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Provided that in the case of Headmaster of Aided primary<\/p>\n
       school the promotee is entitled to draw the scale of pay<\/p>\n
       applicable to the Headmaster of Government School only on<\/p>\n
       completion of the period of service as specified in sub-rule(1) of<\/p>\n
       rule 1, Chapter XXVI, and in the case of Headmaster of Aided<\/p>\n
       High Schools and training schools, the promotee is entitled to<\/p>\n
       draw the departmental Headmaster’s scale of pay only on<\/p>\n
       completion of the period of service as specified in rule 3,<\/p>\n
       Chapter XXVI. Those who have not completed the prescribed<\/p>\n
       service qualification for drawing the respective departmental<\/p>\n
       Headmaster’s scale of pay will be paid their grade pay and<\/p>\n
       supervision allowance only.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              (6) If no teacher with the prescribed service qualification<\/p>\n
       is available on the staff on the school or the schools under the<\/p>\n
       Educational Agency for temporary promotion as Headmaster<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.2342 & 2388\/08\n<\/p>\n
                                    – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
       under sub-rule(1) and the proviso thereunder, the seniormost<\/p>\n
       teacher on the staff of the school or the schools under the<\/p>\n
       Educational Agency shall be appointed as Teacher-in-charge,<\/p>\n
       provided that in the case of a High School, the teacher-in-charge<\/p>\n
       should be the Senior most Graduate teacher on the staff of the<\/p>\n
       school or the Unit, and he shall be replaced as soon as a fully<\/p>\n
       qualified teacher as provided in the rules becomes available.<\/p>\n
               (7) The Teacher-in-charge so appointed under sub-rule<\/p>\n
       (6) shall be eligible for his grade pay plus charge allowance<\/p>\n
       fixed by Government. He shall be counted against the post of<\/p>\n
       the Headmaster and the consequential vacancy shall also be<\/p>\n
       filled.”.\n<\/p>\n
Going by the above rule, if nobody is qualified, the senior most<\/p>\n
H.S.A. has to be posted as teacher-in-charge and the first<\/p>\n
person, who gets qualified should be appointed as the<\/p>\n
Headmistress of the school.            As rightly held by the learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge in Ext.P8, the right of the management of a<\/p>\n
minority educational institution does not extend to appointing<\/p>\n
an unqualified hand.         In this case, we notice that the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent relinquished her claim                 under Ext.P13 w.e.f.<\/p>\n
1.4.2001, the date on which the vacancy arose.                   Thereafter,<\/p>\n
only the appellant and the 5th respondent remained in the field.<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.2342 & 2388\/08\n<\/p>\n
                              – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
If the 5th respondent was qualified on 1.4.2001 or she became<\/p>\n
qualified first, she could have been preferred by the<\/p>\n
management.        But, we notice that the appellant became<\/p>\n
qualified in December, 2001     and the 5th respondent became<\/p>\n
qualified only on 7.6.2005. So, the appellant was entitled to be<\/p>\n
appointed as Headmistress with from December, 2001. In the<\/p>\n
face of Ext.P13 relinquishment letter of the 5th respondent, the<\/p>\n
Manager has no other option, but to appoint the appellant as<\/p>\n
Headmistress.        The order of the Government permitting a<\/p>\n
contrary course of action    is plainly untenable and also runs<\/p>\n
counter to the mandate of Ext.P8 judgment. The reasons given<\/p>\n
by the learned Single Judge to sustain the impugned order is<\/p>\n
unsupportable in law. Once Ext.P8 has become final and the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent relinquish her claim, the manager was bound to<\/p>\n
appoint the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
           5. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed.    The<\/p>\n
judgment under appeal      is reversed and the writ petition is<\/p>\n
allowed by quashing Ext.P9 and also directing the 4th respondent<\/p>\n
to appoint the appellant as Headmistress with retrospective<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.2342 & 2388\/08\n<\/p>\n
                                 – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
effect from December 2001.           The D.E.O. shall approve the<\/p>\n
appointment.        The   appellant    shall be   entitled to  all<\/p>\n
consequential benefits except arrears of salary.     But, she shall<\/p>\n
be entitled to get arrears of salary from today. The Manager<\/p>\n
shall pass orders appointing the appellant as directed above,<\/p>\n
within one month and forward the same to the D.E.O.           The<\/p>\n
D.E.O. shall pass orders approving the appointment within one<\/p>\n
month thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
W.A. No.2388 of 2008:\n<\/p>\n
        In view of the judgment in W.A. No.2342 of 2008, this<\/p>\n
appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                        K. Balakrishnan Nair,
\n                                                 Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                            C.T. Ravikumar,
\n                                                 Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\nDK.\n<\/p>\n
                       (True copy)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.K. Leela vs Govt Of Kerala Rep. By Secretary on 10 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 2342 of 2008() 1. M.K. LEELA, H.S.A., VMALA HRIDYA HIG … Petitioner Vs 1. GOVT OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY … Respondent 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL […]<\/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-190829","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.K. Leela vs Govt Of Kerala Rep. By Secretary on 10 July, 2009 - 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\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.K. Leela vs Govt Of Kerala Rep. By Secretary on 10 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-11T08:21:36+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.K. Leela vs Govt Of Kerala Rep. By Secretary on 10 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-11T08:21:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2120,\"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\\\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009\",\"name\":\"M.K. Leela vs Govt Of Kerala Rep. By Secretary on 10 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-11T08:21:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.K. Leela vs Govt Of Kerala Rep. By Secretary on 10 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"M.K. Leela vs Govt Of Kerala Rep. By Secretary on 10 July, 2009 - 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\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.K. Leela vs Govt Of Kerala Rep. By Secretary on 10 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-11T08:21:36+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.K. Leela vs Govt Of Kerala Rep. By Secretary on 10 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-11T08:21:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009"},"wordCount":2120,"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\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009","name":"M.K. Leela vs Govt Of Kerala Rep. By Secretary on 10 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-11T08:21:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-leela-vs-govt-of-kerala-rep-by-secretary-on-10-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.K. Leela vs Govt Of Kerala Rep. By Secretary on 10 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/190829","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=190829"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190829\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190829"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190829"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}