{"id":21571,"date":"2008-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-09-27T15:54:29","modified_gmt":"2018-09-27T10:24:29","slug":"dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Dr.P.K. Santhakumari vs State Of Kerla on 18 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Dr.P.K. Santhakumari vs State Of Kerla on 18 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 18823 of 2008(N)\n\n\n1. DR.P.K. SANTHAKUMARI, SUPERINTENDENT\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERLA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE\n\n3. DR.R. SREEKUMAR, PROFESSOR & HEAD OF\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :18\/09\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                         ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n               -----------------------------------------------------\n                       W.P.C. No 18823 of 2008\n               ----------------------------------------------------\n                 Dated this the 18th September 2008\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext. P10 and to<\/p>\n
direct the first respondent to follow Ext.P9 recommendation for<\/p>\n
posting   Superintendent in the Government Ayurveda College,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram.\n<\/p>\n
      2. Briefly noted, the facts of the case are that, the petitioner<\/p>\n
and the third respondent are governed by Ext.P5, the Rules for<\/p>\n
the Kerala State Ayurveda Medical Education (Teaching) Services,<\/p>\n
2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Special Rules, for short).             As<\/p>\n
far as service details of the petitioner are concerned, the petitioner<\/p>\n
commenced service as Tutor on 21.12.1981 and was promoted as<\/p>\n
Reader on 01.01.1998 and thereafter by Ext. P3 she was promoted<\/p>\n
as Professor with effect from 18.12.2001.                 In so far as the third<\/p>\n
respondent is concerned, he commenced service as Tutor on<\/p>\n
17.08.1989 and has been promoted as Professor with effect from<\/p>\n
25.10.2005.\n<\/p>\n
WPC 18823\/08                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
     3. The Superintendents of     Hospitals attached to Ayurveda<\/p>\n
Colleges are posted as per Note 5 to Rule 3 of the Special Rules,<\/p>\n
which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “5.   Willing Professor from the Departments attached to<\/p>\n
     Hospital will be appointed as Superintendent of the hospital<\/p>\n
     attached to the Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram,<\/p>\n
     Trippunithura and Kannur and Readers as Resident Medical<\/p>\n
     Officers.       They   will  perform     the   responsibilties of<\/p>\n
     Superintendents\/Resident Medical Officers in addition to the<\/p>\n
     normal duties in their Departments concerned. In speciality<\/p>\n
     hospitals such as the Ayurveda College Hospital for Women<\/p>\n
     and Children, Poojappura etc. Professors specialized in the<\/p>\n
     concerned branches will be considered for appointment as<\/p>\n
     Superintendents.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
In terms of the Note, by Ext. P6, willingness was        invited from<\/p>\n
Professors for posting as Superintendent of Ayurveda College<\/p>\n
Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.    In the meantime, on the retirement<\/p>\n
of the then Superintendent of Government Ayurveda College<\/p>\n
Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, by Ext. P7, the petitioner was put in<\/p>\n
charge of that post as well.\n<\/p>\n
     4. It would appear that the petitioner, third respondent and yet<\/p>\n
WPC 18823\/08                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
another person had expressed their willingness in response to Ext.<\/p>\n
P6.    On receipt of the willingness from Professors, by Ext. P9, the<\/p>\n
second respondent informed the first respondent the details of the<\/p>\n
three willing Professors which included both the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
third respondent. The second respondent further stated in Ext. P9<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      “As only one can be appointed as Superintendent, Government<\/p>\n
      Ayurveda College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, Dr P.K.<\/p>\n
      Santhakumari (Senior) who is the seniormost among the three<\/p>\n
      applicants may be appointed as Superintendent, Government<\/p>\n
      Ayurveda College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
However, the first respondent issued Ext. P10 order              dated<\/p>\n
20.06.2008, posting the third respondent as Superintendent of the<\/p>\n
Government Ayurveda College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and it<\/p>\n
is challenging Ext. P10 this writ petition has been filed.<\/p>\n
       5. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is the<\/p>\n
seniormost among the three Professors who had expressed their<\/p>\n
willingness in response to Ext. P6. It is contended that the Special<\/p>\n
Rules do not contain any particular method to be followed in the<\/p>\n
WPC 18823\/08                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
matter of posting of Superintendents and that in the past, such<\/p>\n
postings have been made following seniority of willing candidates<\/p>\n
accepting the recommendation made in that behalf by the Director<\/p>\n
concerned.     In support of the above, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner would refer me to Exts. P11 to P15, documents obtained<\/p>\n
by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act.<\/p>\n
        6.   In the counter affidavit has been filed by the first<\/p>\n
respondent, it is conceded that all the applicants were eligible for<\/p>\n
posting as Superintendents.     It is stated that the first respondent,<\/p>\n
after carefully considering the willingness expressed by the<\/p>\n
Professors, appointed the third respondent, giving due regard to his<\/p>\n
efficiency and skills.    It is also stated that seniority is not the<\/p>\n
criterion for posting as Superintendent and that the Government<\/p>\n
have examined the records and assessed the ability of the persons<\/p>\n
who had expressed their willingness to be posted as Superintendent.<\/p>\n
Yet another reason stated is that third respondent is having service<\/p>\n
of more than five years and continuity of service is one of the<\/p>\n
criterion that weighed with the Government. Proceeding further it is<\/p>\n
stated that the       second respondent has sent              Ext. P9<\/p>\n
recommendation        without considering Ext.P5 Special Rules and<\/p>\n
WPC 18823\/08                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
that any recommendation of the Director is not contemplated by the<\/p>\n
Special Rules.     It is also the case of the first respondent that first<\/p>\n
respondent is not bound to act on the recommendation which has<\/p>\n
been made without assessing the comparative merit and ability of<\/p>\n
the persons eligible to be posted as Superintendent. It is on these<\/p>\n
reasons that the first respondent is seeking to justify Ext. P10 order<\/p>\n
posting the third respondent as Superintendent.<\/p>\n
      7. Third respondent has also filed counter affidavit seeking to<\/p>\n
sustain    Ext P10 and supporting      the stand      taken by the first<\/p>\n
respondent in its counter affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the third<\/p>\n
respondent would contend for the position that it is not seniority<\/p>\n
which is relevant in the posting as Superintendents but it is the<\/p>\n
ability and competence of the person concerned which is relevant.<\/p>\n
Although it is not raised in the counter affidavit, it is also contended<\/p>\n
that going by Rule 60 (a) of Part I K.S.R the petitioner had attained<\/p>\n
the age of superannuation on 31.08.2008, but            is continuing in<\/p>\n
service till the end of the academic year on the strength of Rule 60<\/p>\n
(c).   It is stated that such continuance only entitles her to continue<\/p>\n
as Professor in the teaching faculty and not for anything further. In<\/p>\n
WPC 18823\/08                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
effect, what is argued is that the post is a selection post and that<\/p>\n
during the period subsequent to 31.08.2008 the petitioner cannot<\/p>\n
aspire to be posted as Superintendent of the hospital and should<\/p>\n
give way for her junior.\n<\/p>\n
       9. I shall first deal with the contention relying on Rule 60 (a)<\/p>\n
and (c), Part I, K.S.R. In so far as the plea now raised relying on<\/p>\n
Rule 60 (c) of Part I K.S.R is concerned, I should confess my inability<\/p>\n
to accept the same for more reasons than one. As rightly pointed<\/p>\n
out by the counsel for the respondents, as per the Special Rules<\/p>\n
posting as Superintendent is not a case of promotion. However, so<\/p>\n
long as the petitioner continues as Professor, whether it be on the<\/p>\n
strength of Rule 60 (c) or otherwise, in my view, except those<\/p>\n
benefits which are expressly denied to her by terms of the Rules<\/p>\n
itself, she is entitled to all other benefits. If that be so, I cannot find<\/p>\n
anything    in  the    Rule    denying  the     benefit   of  posting    as<\/p>\n
Superintendent.\n<\/p>\n
       10. That apart, it is also to be noted that Ext. P10 order by<\/p>\n
which    the third respondent was posted as Superintendent, was<\/p>\n
issued on 20.06.2008 which is much prior to 31.08.2008, the date<\/p>\n
on which the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation going<\/p>\n
WPC 18823\/08                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
by Rule 60(a).      This court is examining the correctness of Ext. P10<\/p>\n
and therefore the eligibility of the petitioner and third respondent is<\/p>\n
required to be assessed as on the date of Ext. P10, viz.,20.06.2008.<\/p>\n
If that be so, the argument now raised relying on Rule 60(c), which is<\/p>\n
also not raised in the counter affidavits filed by respondents 1 and<\/p>\n
3, is devoid of any substance.\n<\/p>\n
        11. Now what remains is whether seniority of the Professors<\/p>\n
has to be accepted as the basis for posting. A reading of the Special<\/p>\n
Rules would show that apart from stating that posting is to be made<\/p>\n
from among willing Professors, there is no indication in the Special<\/p>\n
Rules with regard to the process to be adopted in choosing and<\/p>\n
posting one among the willing Professors.        In such a case, I feel,<\/p>\n
what is relevant to be examined is the yardstick that has been<\/p>\n
adopted by the first respondent in the past when the post was filled<\/p>\n
up on different occasion. This is seen disclosed to the petitioner as<\/p>\n
per Exts. P11 to P15 which have been produced along with the reply<\/p>\n
affidavit filed by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
       12. Ext. P11 is a query raised by the petitioner in which she<\/p>\n
has raised a specific question as to whether on earlier occasions<\/p>\n
when Superintendents were posted, seniority of the willing<\/p>\n
WPC 18823\/08                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
Professors has been overlooked. This has been answered by the<\/p>\n
Public   Information  Officer,  Directorate   of  Ayurveda Medical<\/p>\n
Education by his reply dated 21.08.2008 in Ext. P11, stating that-<\/p>\n
      13. Ext. P12 is a letter dated 24.09.1999 from the Principal of<\/p>\n
Government Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram addressed to<\/p>\n
the first respondent, in which, in so far as the posting of<\/p>\n
Superintendent is concerned, the following recommendation is<\/p>\n
made.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “Superintendents:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            As per guidelines Para No.13 willingness from the
\n      Professors of Clinical Department may be considered for the
\n      posting of Superintendent in the Collegiate Hospital.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            Dr P.S. Syamalakumari, Professor of Kayachikitsa and Dr
\n      K. Krishnankutty Nair, Professor of Agadathanthra have
\n      submitted their willingness for the post of Superintendent,
\n      Ayurveda College Hospital, Trivandrum. Among them Dr P.S.
\n      Syamalakumari is the senior hand.             Hence Dr P.S.
\n      Syamalakumari,    Professor    of Kayachikitsa,    Government
\n      Ayurveda College, Trivandrum may be appointed          as the
\n      Superintendent of Government Ayurveda College, Trivandrum.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
It is revealed from the Government order dated 17.11.1999 that<\/p>\n
WPC 18823\/08                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
accepting the above recommendation Dr P.S. Syamalakumari was<\/p>\n
posted as Superintendent of Government Ayurveda College Hospital,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram.\n<\/p>\n
      14. Similarly, Ext. P13 is yet another recommendation of the<\/p>\n
Principal of the College recommending that the duties          of the<\/p>\n
Superintendent, Ayurveda College, Tripunithura be entrusted to the<\/p>\n
seniormost Professor working in that hospital. It is stated that Dr C.<\/p>\n
Retnakaran is the seniormost Professor working in the Government<\/p>\n
Ayurveda College hospital, Tripunithura and that he be appointed as<\/p>\n
Superintendent. This recommendation was accepted and by G.O<\/p>\n
dated 17.01.2001, Sri C. Retnakaran, the seniormost Professor, has<\/p>\n
been posted as Superintendent of Government Ayurveda College<\/p>\n
hospital, Tripunithura.\n<\/p>\n
      15. Similar recommendation has been made in Ext. P14 dated<\/p>\n
18.05.2001, recommending that         M.R. Vasudevan Nair,        the<\/p>\n
seniormost among the Professors in the Ayurveda College hospital,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram be posted as Superintendent of that hospital.<\/p>\n
That was also accepted and as per G.O dated 27.06.2001 posting<\/p>\n
has been effected.\n<\/p>\n
      16. From these documents, it is therefore evident that the<\/p>\n
WPC 18823\/08                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
consistent    practice    hitherto    followed    was    based   on   the<\/p>\n
recommendation made by the Principal\/Director Government has<\/p>\n
been making postings of Superintendent and that too following the<\/p>\n
seniority of the Professors who have expressed their willingness to<\/p>\n
be posted.       In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent,<\/p>\n
there is absolutely no justification offered for departing from this<\/p>\n
settled precedent that has been followed for several years. The<\/p>\n
contention that Rules do not contemplate a recommendation from<\/p>\n
the second respondent and that the posting is based on selection,<\/p>\n
are all against facts as disclosed above.       The remaining length of<\/p>\n
service of the third respondent, is also not seen taken as a criterion<\/p>\n
in the past and is now adopted only to justify Ext.P10. In this context,<\/p>\n
it also needs to be noticed that there is no case in the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit of the first respondent that the petitioner is unsuitable to be<\/p>\n
posted as Superintendent of the hospital. In view of all these, in my<\/p>\n
view, seniority has to be the basis and if so, Ext. P10 order posting<\/p>\n
the third respondent cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
      17. For these reasons, I quash Ext. P10 and direct that the<\/p>\n
petitioner shall be posted as Superintendent of Government<\/p>\n
Ayurveda College hospital, Thiruvananthapuram as expeditiously as<\/p>\n
WPC 18823\/08                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
possible, at any rate within two weeks from the date of production of<\/p>\n
a copy of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     The writ petition is allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                        ANTONY DOMINIC
\n                                             Judge<\/p>\n
18\/09\/2008
\nen<\/p>\n
                       [true copy]<\/p>\n
WPC 18823\/08                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
Appendix<\/p>\n
Petitioner’s exhibits:\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 – True copy of the third page of her S.S.L.C Book
\nExt.P2 – True copy of combined seniority list of teaching staff of
\nGovt Ayurveda Colleges, the Thiruvananthapuram, Tripunithura and
\nKannur on 1.1.1998
\nExt.P3 – True copy of order promoting petitioner and others tothe
\npost of Professor dated 18.12.2001
\nExt.P4 – True copy of order appointing the third respondent dated
\n26.10.2005
\nExt.P5 – True copy of Special Rules for the Kerala State Ayurveda
\nMedical Education (Teaching) Services dated 4.8.2007
\nExt.P6 – True copy of Circular dated 22.04.2008
\nExt.P7 – True copy of order dated 28.4.2008
\nExt.P8 – True copy of order dated 22.5.2008
\nExt.P9 – True copy of letter dated 2.6.2008 forwarded from the office
\nof the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P10 – True copy of order dated 20.06.2008 forwarded from the
\noffice of the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P11 – True copy of the letter and the information received from
\nthe Ayurvedic Education Department
\nExt.P12 – True copy of letter and the information received from the
\nAyurvedic Education Department
\nExt.P13 – True copy of recommendation of principal dated
\n24.09.1999 and the appointment made by the first respondent on
\n17.11.1999
\nExt.P14 – True copy of the letter seeking the ratification of Govt in
\nposting seniormost professor as Superintendent by the Director
\ndated 18.5.2001 and the ratification order issued by the first
\nrespondent on 27.6.2001
\nExt.P15- True copy of recommendation of Director dated 30.5.2005
\nand the appointment made by the first respondent on 20.09.2005
\nExt.P16 – True copy of order dated 31.5.2008 issued by the first
\nrespondent.<\/p>\n
\nRespondent's exhibis: Nil\n\n                       [true copy]\n\nWPC 18823\/08    13\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Dr.P.K. Santhakumari vs State Of Kerla on 18 September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 18823 of 2008(N) 1. DR.P.K. SANTHAKUMARI, SUPERINTENDENT … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERLA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO … Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE 3. DR.R. SREEKUMAR, PROFESSOR & HEAD OF […]<\/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-21571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.P.K. Santhakumari vs State Of Kerla on 18 September, 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\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.P.K. Santhakumari vs State Of Kerla on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-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=\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-27T10:24:29+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\\\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.P.K. Santhakumari vs State Of Kerla on 18 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-27T10:24:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2178,\"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\\\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Dr.P.K. Santhakumari vs State Of Kerla on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-27T10:24:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.P.K. Santhakumari vs State Of Kerla on 18 September, 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":"Dr.P.K. Santhakumari vs State Of Kerla on 18 September, 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\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.P.K. Santhakumari vs State Of Kerla on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-27T10:24:29+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\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.P.K. Santhakumari vs State Of Kerla on 18 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-27T10:24:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008"},"wordCount":2178,"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\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008","name":"Dr.P.K. Santhakumari vs State Of Kerla on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-27T10:24:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-k-santhakumari-vs-state-of-kerla-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.P.K. Santhakumari vs State Of Kerla on 18 September, 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\/21571","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=21571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}