{"id":199521,"date":"2008-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008"},"modified":"2016-12-31T18:26:34","modified_gmt":"2016-12-31T12:56:34","slug":"k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.Padmaja vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Padmaja vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 October, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 34654 of 2007(A)\n\n\n1. K.PADMAJA, JUNIOR CLERK,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION\n\n3. THE NAGALASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE\n\n4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\n\n Dated :15\/10\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n         THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.\n\n  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n            W.P.(C).No.34654 of 2007-A\n\n  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n     Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008.\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                                    “CR”\n<\/p>\n
1.The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk by<\/p>\n
 direct recruitment, on 13-3-1998, to the service<\/p>\n
 of the third respondent, a co-operative bank. She<\/p>\n
 is  a  post  graduate  in   Commerce  with  Higher<\/p>\n
 Diploma in Co-operation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.The second respondent, the Co-operative Service<\/p>\n
 Examination   Board  issued  Ext.P1   notification<\/p>\n
 calling  for   applications  for  recruitment   in<\/p>\n
 different co-operative establishments, including<\/p>\n
 as Assistant Secretary in the third respondent<\/p>\n
 bank. Contending that such selection and direct<\/p>\n
 recruitment   is   impermissible   in   law,   the<\/p>\n
 petitioner has filed this writ petition on the<\/p>\n
 further   plea  that   she  is   entitled  to   be<\/p>\n
WP(C)34654\/2008           -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 considered for promotion to that post in terms of<\/p>\n
 Rule 185 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies<\/p>\n
 Rules,      1969;  the   “Rules”,    for   short. She<\/p>\n
 instituted the writ petition after moving the<\/p>\n
 Joint     Registrar   seeking    intervention  in the<\/p>\n
 matter. Acting on the fact that the petitioner<\/p>\n
 moved     the   Joint  Registrar,    making  complaint<\/p>\n
 against       the  bank,    she   was   placed   under<\/p>\n
 suspension.      That is challenged by an amendment.<\/p>\n
 Also challenged, by way of amendment, is Ext.P6<\/p>\n
 approved Feeder Category Rules as they now stand.<\/p>\n
 The challenge thereto is on the ground that the<\/p>\n
 prescription of direct recruitment, therein, as a<\/p>\n
 method      of   appointment    to  the   category of<\/p>\n
 Assistant Secretary is impermissible on the face<\/p>\n
 of the legislative mandate contained in Rule 185.<\/p>\n
3.The    President   of   the    third  respondent was<\/p>\n
 impleaded as additional fifth respondent. The<\/p>\n
 candidate who came out successful with the first<\/p>\n
 rank, following the selection in terms of Ext.P1,<\/p>\n
 was impleaded as additional sixth respondent.<\/p>\n
WP(C)34654\/2008          -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
4.The   third   respondent     bank and  the selected<\/p>\n
 candidate      impeach  the     entitlement  of  the<\/p>\n
 petitioner for being considered for promotion to<\/p>\n
 the post of Assistant Secretary and contend that<\/p>\n
 on the face of Ext.P6 approved Feeder Category<\/p>\n
 Rules, direct recruitment has been legitimately<\/p>\n
 resorted      to   and  such     a  course  is   not<\/p>\n
 impermissible on the face of the Kerala Co-<\/p>\n
 operative      Societies   Act,    1969,  hereinafter<\/p>\n
 referred to as the “Act” and the Rules. It is<\/p>\n
 also pointed out that the petitioner challenged<\/p>\n
 Ext.P1 notification by moving the Joint Registrar<\/p>\n
 only about 3 or 4 months after the issuance of<\/p>\n
 Ext.P1 and it is unjustifiable for the petitioner<\/p>\n
 to insist on any relief being granted in this<\/p>\n
 writ petition, in any manner, interfering with<\/p>\n
 the selection and appointment of the additional<\/p>\n
 sixth      respondent,  when     the  claim  of  the<\/p>\n
 petitioner is not sustainable in law. It is<\/p>\n
 accordingly contended that a writ, as sought for,<\/p>\n
 be not issued. However, the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
WP(C)34654\/2008           -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 the bank has very fairly stated that the order<\/p>\n
 placing      the  petitioner    under  suspension was<\/p>\n
 issued because of lack of proper advice. No<\/p>\n
 attempt was made to sustain that order in the<\/p>\n
 course of arguments.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.Going by her qualifications already noticed, the<\/p>\n
 petitioner         possesses       the     educational<\/p>\n
 qualifications      for   being    appointed  as  the<\/p>\n
 Assistant Secretary.        She is, in fact, a post<\/p>\n
 graduate in Commerce and possesses Higher Diploma<\/p>\n
 in Co-operation. As of now, she is aged 42 years.<\/p>\n
 It is stated that she does not have the aid of<\/p>\n
 any rule of reservation for further movement, up<\/p>\n
 the ladder, by promotion. While it may be a<\/p>\n
 matter of heart-burn for a person to stagnate for<\/p>\n
 a   quite     long  time in     a particular  post or<\/p>\n
 category, as has happened to the petitioner, the<\/p>\n
 entitlement for promotion is a matter which is<\/p>\n
 governed by the Act, Statutory Rules and approved<\/p>\n
 Feeder Category Rules. In the absence of any<\/p>\n
 complaint      about  any   unlawful  denial   of any<\/p>\n
WP(C)34654\/2008         -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 promotion, the question that arises for decision<\/p>\n
 in this case is as to whether the petitioner is<\/p>\n
 entitled to claim appointment by promotion to the<\/p>\n
 category of Assistant Secretary in the third<\/p>\n
 respondent bank, though she is stagnating in the<\/p>\n
 post of Junior Clerk from 13-3-1998, the date of<\/p>\n
 her entry into service.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.Going by Ext.P6 Feeder Category Rules, Junior<\/p>\n
 Clerk\/Junior Cashier is at Sl.No.7 and Assistant<\/p>\n
 Secretary\/Manager    is  at    Sl.No.2. In between,<\/p>\n
 there     are  four categories.   The  plea of  the<\/p>\n
 petitioner, as projected by her learned counsel,<\/p>\n
 is that in terms of Rule 185(1), in the absence<\/p>\n
 of    employees   being available    in the  feeder<\/p>\n
 category to a post, for promotion; those employed<\/p>\n
 in the lower categories can be brought up the<\/p>\n
 ladder by creating a supernumerary post. This is<\/p>\n
 projected as the net effect of the second proviso<\/p>\n
 occurring after sub-rule (1) of Rule 185.<\/p>\n
7.In view of an apparent controversy regarding the<\/p>\n
WP(C)34654\/2008           -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 wording of that proviso as printed in certain<\/p>\n
 text books, the gazette version has been perused.<\/p>\n
8.Sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 185 relate to<\/p>\n
 certain      categories  of     posts in co-operative<\/p>\n
 societies.      Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 185<\/p>\n
 authorize direct recruitment by maintaining a<\/p>\n
 particular ratio between promotion and direct<\/p>\n
 recruitment. The post of Assistant Secretary is a<\/p>\n
 post which falls under sub-rule (2) in case of<\/p>\n
 primary co-operative societies and urban banks<\/p>\n
 having a deposit of more than Rs.10 crores. The<\/p>\n
 third respondent does not have such financial<\/p>\n
 status.      Even when sub-rule applies, there cannot<\/p>\n
 be any direct recruitment in excess of twenty<\/p>\n
 five per cent of the total strength of the<\/p>\n
 respective posts. There is only one post of<\/p>\n
 Assistant Secretary in the third respondent’s<\/p>\n
 establishment. Therefore, the post of Assistant<\/p>\n
 Secretary in the third respondent’s establishment<\/p>\n
 is not one to which sub-rule (2) applies.<\/p>\n
WP(C)34654\/2008           -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
9.This takes us to sub-rule (1) of Rule 185. It<\/p>\n
 provides for promotion on the basis of seniority<\/p>\n
 in the feeder category. The feeder categories,<\/p>\n
 for such purpose, are to be specified by the<\/p>\n
 society, by framing suitable regulations, with<\/p>\n
 the approval of the Registrar. Therefore, when<\/p>\n
 the society frames the regulations specifying the<\/p>\n
 feeder     categories,  with     the  approval of  the<\/p>\n
 Registrar,     it   becomes     the  feeder  categories<\/p>\n
 prescribed for the purpose of Rule 185(1). On the<\/p>\n
 face of that feeder category, promotions have to<\/p>\n
 be effected in terms of Rule 185(1) and in terms<\/p>\n
 of the provisions of Sub-rules (2), (3) and (4)<\/p>\n
 to the extent they govern the field. The first<\/p>\n
 proviso      to Rule  185(1)     enjoins  that  on  the<\/p>\n
 relinquishment of promotion to a post by a senior<\/p>\n
 in the feeder category, the immediate junior in<\/p>\n
 that     category  shall    be    promoted. The   first<\/p>\n
 proviso      to Rule  185(1),     therefore,  works in<\/p>\n
 relation to the feeder category only. The second<\/p>\n
 proviso      provides  further     that   if  all  the<\/p>\n
 employees     in  the  feeder     category  to  a  post<\/p>\n
WP(C)34654\/2008           -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 relinquish      promotion,      an employee  on the<\/p>\n
 immediate lower category shall be promoted to the<\/p>\n
 post after promoting him to the feeder category,<\/p>\n
 by creating a supernumerary post in the feeder<\/p>\n
 category. It also postulates the abolition of the<\/p>\n
 supernumerary post so created, immediately on the<\/p>\n
 promotion      of  that  employee   from  the feeder<\/p>\n
 category to the post\/category to which promotion<\/p>\n
 is being made. Therefore, the second proviso<\/p>\n
 works in the zone of the feeder category and its<\/p>\n
 immediate lower category. The said proviso does<\/p>\n
 not    admit    any  elasticity,   to stretch it  to<\/p>\n
 categories which are further down in the Feeder<\/p>\n
 Category Rules. Going by Ext.P6 Feeder Category<\/p>\n
 Rules, the post of Assistant Secretary, to which<\/p>\n
 the impugned selection is made is in Category<\/p>\n
 No.2.         Category    No.3,      namely,   Chief<\/p>\n
 Accountant\/Chief Cashier, is its feeder category.<\/p>\n
 Category No.4 (Internal Auditor) is the category<\/p>\n
 which is the immediate lower category of Category<\/p>\n
 No.3 (Chief Accountant\/Chief Cashier). Therefore,<\/p>\n
 the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 185<\/p>\n
WP(C)34654\/2008           -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 can    aid only a person in Category No.4 in Ext.P6<\/p>\n
 Feeder Category Rules to claim for the creation<\/p>\n
 of a supernumerary post in Category No.3, in<\/p>\n
 situations envisaged by that proviso; to seek<\/p>\n
 further      movement  up    the   ladder, for   being<\/p>\n
 considered       for   appointment      as   Assistant<\/p>\n
 Secretary. The petitioner, who is at Category<\/p>\n
 No.7, cannot get the aid of the second proviso to<\/p>\n
 Rule 185(1), for being considered for appointment<\/p>\n
 by promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary.<\/p>\n
10.Hence,     though  the   petitioner   possesses the<\/p>\n
 educational qualifications to hold the post of<\/p>\n
 Assistant Secretary, going by the Feeder Category<\/p>\n
 Rules, she is not eligible for being considered<\/p>\n
 for    promotion    to  the     category of  Assistant<\/p>\n
 Secretary from Category No.7, Junior Clerk\/Junior<\/p>\n
 Cashier, with the aid of Rule 185(1), including<\/p>\n
 the second proviso thereto.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.This takes us to the question regarding the<\/p>\n
 availability of direct recruitment as a method of<\/p>\n
WP(C)34654\/2008           -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 appointment      to   the      category  of   Assistant<\/p>\n
 Secretary        in    the        third    respondent’s<\/p>\n
 establishment. Rule 185, which governs the field<\/p>\n
 of promotion, does not; and cannot be read to,<\/p>\n
 take    care    of  situations     which  do  not fall<\/p>\n
 directly under that rule, including the three<\/p>\n
 provisos thereto. A situation where there is no<\/p>\n
 qualified hand in the feeder category or in that<\/p>\n
 category which is the immediate lower category to<\/p>\n
 the     feeder   category      is  not  conceived  of,<\/p>\n
 envisaged or provided for, in Rule 185. That is<\/p>\n
 an    area    where  a  rule     of  promotion is  not<\/p>\n
 prescribed. In the absence of any method of<\/p>\n
 appointment being prescribed, it is open to every<\/p>\n
 employer to make direct recruitment because that<\/p>\n
 is the primary manner in which relationship of<\/p>\n
 employer and employee is created. Hence, when the<\/p>\n
 field is unoccupied by any rule authorizing or<\/p>\n
 compelling promotion, or any other specified mode<\/p>\n
 or method of appointment, such field is available<\/p>\n
 for     direct    recruitment.     So   much  so,  the<\/p>\n
 prescription in Ext.P6 that direct recruitment<\/p>\n
WP(C)34654\/2008           -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 shall be an alternate method of appointment to<\/p>\n
 the category of Assistant Secretary cannot be<\/p>\n
 found     fault  with.   Not     only  that,  Ext.P6  is<\/p>\n
 approved by the competent authority and in the<\/p>\n
 absence of any violation of the law; which, as<\/p>\n
 already      noticed,  is    just    not  there;  Ext.P6<\/p>\n
 prescribing direct recruitment as an alternate<\/p>\n
 method of appointment to Category No.2 (Assistant<\/p>\n
 Secretary\/Manager) stands.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.Even     if  the   findings     and   reasons in  the<\/p>\n
 preceding paragraphs regarding the sustainability<\/p>\n
 of direct recruitment as method of appointment<\/p>\n
 are to be impeached, that cannot be had at the<\/p>\n
 hands of the petitioner who, as already seen, is<\/p>\n
 incompetent for being considered for promotion to<\/p>\n
 the category of Assistant Secretary, she being<\/p>\n
 neither      in  the  feeder      category  nor in  the<\/p>\n
 category which is immediately lower to the feeder<\/p>\n
 category for the post of Assistant Secretary.<\/p>\n
 Therefore, the beacon of justice would instruct<\/p>\n
 the     writ    court   to       dissuade  itself   from<\/p>\n
WP(C)34654\/2008          -: 12 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 interfering with Ext.P6 and the selection leading<\/p>\n
 to    the    appointment  of    the additional  sixth<\/p>\n
 respondent. The discretion, on this point, has<\/p>\n
 necessarily to be exercised against the interest<\/p>\n
 of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated<\/p>\n
 that without obtaining exemption under Rule 181<\/p>\n
 of the Rules, it may be impermissible to make an<\/p>\n
 appointment by direct recruitment in the case in<\/p>\n
 hand. As already noticed, there is no violation<\/p>\n
 of any rule in the matter. Therefore, requesting<\/p>\n
 for exemption does not arise. The impugned action<\/p>\n
 stands even without any exemption being granted<\/p>\n
 in exercise of the authority under Rule 181 of<\/p>\n
 the Rules.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.The petitioner also seeks relief on alleged<\/p>\n
 entitlement     for   age    relaxation for   service<\/p>\n
 candidates for applying to the post of Assistant<\/p>\n
 Secretary. The age for direct recruitment is<\/p>\n
 statutorily fixed as per Rule 183 of the Rules.<\/p>\n
WP(C)34654\/2008        -: 13 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 There is no power for the employer to relax that.<\/p>\n
15.As recorded above, Ext.P5 decision placing the<\/p>\n
 petitioner     under suspension   is   not  being<\/p>\n
 supported by the third respondent employer. The<\/p>\n
 same also does not stand to reason.\n<\/p>\n
 In the result, while repelling all other claims<\/p>\n
 and contentions of the petitioner, this writ<\/p>\n
 petition is allowed in part quashing Ext.P5. No<\/p>\n
 costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                      THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
\n                                  JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Sha\/151008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Padmaja vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 October, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 34654 of 2007(A) 1. K.PADMAJA, JUNIOR CLERK, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE … Respondent 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION 3. THE NAGALASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR […]<\/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-199521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Padmaja vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 15 October, 2008 - 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\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Padmaja vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 15 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-31T12:56:34+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\\\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Padmaja vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-31T12:56:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1939,\"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\\\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008\",\"name\":\"K.Padmaja vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 15 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-31T12:56:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Padmaja vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"K.Padmaja vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 15 October, 2008 - 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\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Padmaja vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 15 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-31T12:56:34+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\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Padmaja vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-31T12:56:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008"},"wordCount":1939,"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\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008","name":"K.Padmaja vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 15 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-31T12:56:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-padmaja-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Padmaja vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/199521","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=199521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}