{"id":19708,"date":"2010-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010"},"modified":"2014-05-29T01:10:54","modified_gmt":"2014-05-28T19:40:54","slug":"the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 24119 of 2010(L)\n\n\n1. THE MANAGER, P.M.S.A.V.H.S.SCHOOL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :25\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                     T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.\n                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                    W.P.(C) Nos. 24119\/2010-L &amp;\n                                24282\/2010-I\n                  - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n             Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010.\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>       These two writ petitions have been filed by the Managers of the<\/p>\n<p>respective Vocational Higher Secondary schools aggrieved by the exclusion<\/p>\n<p>of those schools from the list of schools prepared for starting Higher<\/p>\n<p>Secondary Courses. Since common questions have been raised, they are<\/p>\n<p>being disposed of by a common judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>       2. The facts of W.P.(C) No.24119\/2010 show the following: The<\/p>\n<p>school in question is an aided school situated in Ponmala Grama Panchayat<\/p>\n<p>in Malappuram District. The same is the only high school available in the<\/p>\n<p>entire Panchayat and there is no other Higher Secondary school therein.<\/p>\n<p>The students had to seek admission in the adjacent Grama Panchayat, viz.<\/p>\n<p>Kottakkal Grama Panchayat to pursue their higher secondary course, which<\/p>\n<p>is situated more than 8 kms. away from Ponmala Grama Panchayat. As<\/p>\n<p>early as in 2004, by Exts.P1 and P2 the Grama Panchayat had requested the<\/p>\n<p>Government to sanction Higher Secondary section in the petitioner&#8217;s school.<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P3 is the copy of the norms and guidelines issued as per Govt. Order<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C).No. 24119 &amp; 24282 of 2010<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>dated 30.3.2000 with regard to the establishment of Higher Secondary<\/p>\n<p>schools.   Para 7 provides that Vocational schools to be preferred only in<\/p>\n<p>the absence of a regular High School. It is averred that within a radius of 7<\/p>\n<p>kms. there is no other high school and the petitioner&#8217;s school is the only one.<\/p>\n<p>In W.P.(C).No.24282\/2010, the School was established as an aided High<\/p>\n<p>School in 1983. In 2001 two batches of Vocational Higher Secondary<\/p>\n<p>Course was sanctioned. It is averred in para (1) that the area Varode, is an<\/p>\n<p>educationally backward one.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3. For the year 2010-2011 the Government issued Ext.P4 order in<\/p>\n<p>[W.P.(C).No.24119\/2010] prescribing the norms for sanctioning Higher<\/p>\n<p>Secondary Schools. Ext.P5 therein is the notification issued by the second<\/p>\n<p>respondent Director of Higher Secondary Education in terms of the<\/p>\n<p>Government policy which states that the policy is to ensure             higher<\/p>\n<p>secondary schools in each Panchayat in a phased manner.<\/p>\n<p>      4. The norms further show that number of High Schools having<\/p>\n<p>Higher Secondary\/Vocational Higher Secondary Schools within a radius of<\/p>\n<p>5 km. from the applicant&#8217;s school as well as the details of students who<\/p>\n<p>have passed from the high schools in the SSLC examination March 2010,<\/p>\n<p>will be a factor to be considered. The number of High Schools not having<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C).No. 24119 &amp; 24282 of 2010<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Higher Secondary\/Vocational Higher Secondary Schools within a radius of<\/p>\n<p>5 km. of the applicant school will also be a factor.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5. The Selection Committee recommended the sanction of Higher<\/p>\n<p>Secondary school to the schools managed by both the petitioners. Final<\/p>\n<p>order is produced as Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) No.24119\/2010.<\/p>\n<p>      6. The order Ext.P8 issued by the Government states one aspect, that<\/p>\n<p>permission for starting the courses will be granted only after the schools<\/p>\n<p>and the lists are examined by the Director to ensure whether vocational<\/p>\n<p>higher secondary courses have been started in any of them. It is also<\/p>\n<p>mentioned that if it is found so, such schools will be omitted from the list.<\/p>\n<p>      7. Both the schools were recommended to be included in the list, but<\/p>\n<p>thereafter they have been deleted as per Ext.P9 order produced in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n<p>No.24119\/2010 which is produced as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.24282\/2010.<\/p>\n<p>Due to the reason that the petitioners&#8217; schools are having Vocational Higher<\/p>\n<p>Secondary Courses, they have been deleted along with another school. The<\/p>\n<p>same is under challenge in these writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>      8. Heard Shri O.V. Radhakrishnan and Shri V.Chidambaresh learned<\/p>\n<p>Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Shri T.B. Hood, learned Govt.<\/p>\n<p>Pleader for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C).No. 24119 &amp; 24282 of 2010<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       9.   Respondents 1 and 2 have filed detailed counter affidavits<\/p>\n<p>explaining the reasons.\n<\/p>\n<p>       10. Shri O.V. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner in W.P.(C) No.24119\/2010 submitted that the condition in Ext.P8<\/p>\n<p>to delete the schools having Vocational Higher Secondary Courses, is really<\/p>\n<p>discriminatory. The crucial question is whether the Panchayat is having a<\/p>\n<p>Higher Secondary School. The fact that the school is having Vocational<\/p>\n<p>Higher Secondary Divisions, is not a disqualification. The Government<\/p>\n<p>itself has varied the same in favour of four schools mentioned in Ext.P8 and<\/p>\n<p>therefore the discriminatory treatment meted out to the school managed by<\/p>\n<p>the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.24119\/2010 is not correct.            Shri V.<\/p>\n<p>Chithambaresh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.<\/p>\n<p>(C) No.24282\/2010 also submitted that having a Higher Secondary school<\/p>\n<p>by way of Vocational Higher Secondary division, is not at all a<\/p>\n<p>disqualification and the deletion from the list is discriminatory.<\/p>\n<p>       11.   Shri O.V. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1389127\/\">State of Haryana<\/p>\n<p>and others v. Rajpal Sharma and others<\/a> {(1996) 3 SCC 273}, <a href=\"\/doc\/505590\/\">Indian<\/p>\n<p>Drugs &amp; Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and others v. Punjab Drugs<\/p>\n<p>W.P.<\/a>(C).No. 24119 &amp; 24282 of 2010<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Manufactures Association and others {(1996) 6 SCC 247}, <a href=\"\/doc\/1836045\/\">Chandigarh<\/p>\n<p>Administration and others v. Rajni Vali (Mrs) and others<\/a> {(2000) 2<\/p>\n<p>SCC 42) and <a href=\"\/doc\/191200\/\">Cannanore District Muslim Educational Association v.<\/p>\n<p>State of Kerala<\/a> (2010 (2) KLT 725 &#8211; SC) to contend for the position that<\/p>\n<p>aided and Government schools          cannot be differentiated while the<\/p>\n<p>Government grants certain benefits. In the view I propose to take, it is not<\/p>\n<p>necessary to elaborately consider the principles stated therein.<\/p>\n<p>      12. Evidently, the matter will have to be considered in the light of<\/p>\n<p>the educational need of the area in view of Ext.P3 Govt. Order produced in<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C) No.24119\/2010. In the case of localities where other high schools<\/p>\n<p>are not there, going by para 7 of Ext.P3, Vocational Schools will have to be<\/p>\n<p>preferred. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned<\/p>\n<p>Senior Counsel for the petitioners that there is no total exclusion of schools<\/p>\n<p>having Vocational Higher Secondary divisions for conduct of Higher<\/p>\n<p>Secondary courses.\n<\/p>\n<p>      13. Then, the other question is whether the stipulation in the norms<\/p>\n<p>adopted as per Ext.P4 Govt. Order dated 3.6.2010 that details of any Higher<\/p>\n<p>Secondary\/Vocational Higher Secondary School within a radius of 5 km.<\/p>\n<p>should be mentioned, will affect the petitioners. The respondents have<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C).No. 24119 &amp; 24282 of 2010<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>pointed out that the fact that the petitioners&#8217; schools are having Vocational<\/p>\n<p>Higher Secondary divisions, were not disclosed in the applications and only<\/p>\n<p>later the same was known and in the light of the above, the petitioners&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>schools have been deleted from the list.        Learned Govt.    Pleader also<\/p>\n<p>explained that the four Government schools which           were included for<\/p>\n<p>sanctioning Higher Secondary courses and which are having Vocational<\/p>\n<p>Higher Secondary divisions, were given the facility in the light of the<\/p>\n<p>particular education need of the said localities.     It is explained by the<\/p>\n<p>learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the details sought for in<\/p>\n<p>respect of other schools within 5 km. radius of the applicant school, cannot<\/p>\n<p>apply to the petitioners&#8217; schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>       14. Evidently, the Government is considering the sanction of higher<\/p>\n<p>secondary schools in each Panchayat in a phased manner. One of the<\/p>\n<p>crucial questions to be considered is the educational need of the area. Of<\/p>\n<p>course, in the orders issued as per Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No.24119\/2010 which<\/p>\n<p>is Ext.P6 in the other writ petition, the Government wanted to exclude<\/p>\n<p>schools having Vocational Higher Secondary Courses. But at the same<\/p>\n<p>time, the four Government Vocational Higher Secondary Schools have been<\/p>\n<p>sanctioned    Higher Secondary Courses.        That means there is no total<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C).No. 24119 &amp; 24282 of 2010<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>exclusion of Vocational Higher Secondary Schools from the scheme of<\/p>\n<p>sanction of Higher Secondary Schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>      15. Then the only and important question which had to be considered<\/p>\n<p>by the Government is whether the educational need in the area satisfies the<\/p>\n<p>sanctioning of Higher Secondary Courses. Various points have been raised<\/p>\n<p>by the petitioners in these writ petitions as a justification for sanctioning of<\/p>\n<p>Higher Secondary Schools. The reports of the committees which went<\/p>\n<p>against the petitioners when the impugned orders Exts.P9 and P6 were<\/p>\n<p>passed in the respective writ petitions are not before this Court. Whether<\/p>\n<p>the educational need of the areas have been addressed by the departmental<\/p>\n<p>authorities when such reports were called for by the Committee prior to the<\/p>\n<p>inclusion of the petitioners&#8217; schools,      in the list is also not evident.<\/p>\n<p>Obviously copies of such reports have not been furnished to the petitioners.<\/p>\n<p>      16. In that view of the matter, the only course possible is to direct the<\/p>\n<p>matter to be reheard by the Government. There is clear violation of the<\/p>\n<p>principles of natural justice. The adverse reports relied on in Exts.P9 and<\/p>\n<p>P6 have been obtained without notice to the petitioners also. The copies of<\/p>\n<p>the reports have not been furnished to the petitioners, evidently.<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C).No. 24119 &amp; 24282 of 2010<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      17. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P9   in W.P.(C) No.24119\/2010 which excludes Vocational Higher<\/p>\n<p>Secondary Schools like that of the petitioners from the sanction of Higher<\/p>\n<p>Secondary Courses, which is Ext.P6 in W. P.(C) No.24282\/2010, is<\/p>\n<p>quashed. The Government will reconsider the matter after notice to the<\/p>\n<p>petitioners. The petitioners will be furnished copies of the reports relied<\/p>\n<p>upon in Ext.P9 produced in W.P.(C) No.24119\/2010 and Ext.P6 produced<\/p>\n<p>in W.P.(C) No.24282\/2010 for enabling them to file their objections in the<\/p>\n<p>matter, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of<\/p>\n<p>this judgment. Thereafter, the petitioners will be issued notices for hearing<\/p>\n<p>and they will also be allowed to produce additional materials, if any, in<\/p>\n<p>support of their pleas. Appropriate final orders shall be passed within three<\/p>\n<p>months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.<\/p>\n<p>      The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                    (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)<\/p>\n<p>kav\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 24119 of 2010(L) 1. THE MANAGER, P.M.S.A.V.H.S.SCHOOL, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY &#8230; Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY For Petitioner :SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19708","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-28T19:40:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-28T19:40:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1642,\"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\\\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010\",\"name\":\"The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-28T19:40:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-28T19:40:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-28T19:40:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010"},"wordCount":1642,"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\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010","name":"The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-28T19:40:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/19708","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=19708"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19708\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19708"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19708"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19708"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}