{"id":225015,"date":"2009-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3"},"modified":"2016-04-23T13:14:36","modified_gmt":"2016-04-23T07:44:36","slug":"subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3","title":{"rendered":"Subash M.P. vs The Registrar General on 21 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Subash M.P. vs The Registrar General on 21 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 25449 of 2009(R)\n\n\n1. SUBASH M.P., AGED 35 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :21\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n           W.P.(C.)-------------------------of 2009\n                    Nos.25449 (R) & 28866 (R)\n             ---------------------------------\n           Dated, this the 21st day of December, 2009\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The issue being common, these cases are disposed of by this<\/p>\n
common judgment and reference is made to the pleadings in WP(C)<\/p>\n
No.25449\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    The respondent published Ext.R1(a) notification dated<\/p>\n
04\/12\/2008 inviting applications for the post of Chauffer Gr.II.<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 is the news item concerning the said notification. Ext.P2 is a<\/p>\n
copy of the format of the application submitted by the petitioner<\/p>\n
herein. Immediately after submitting the application, he submitted<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 informing the respondent that he omitted to sign on the<\/p>\n
photograph affixed on his application and therefore, he may be<\/p>\n
permitted to produce the signed photograph enclosed to Ext.P3 and<\/p>\n
allowed to participate in the written examination.        However, by<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 dated 29\/09\/2009, his application was rejected stating that<\/p>\n
he had not signed the photograph affixed on the application<\/p>\n
submitted. On receipt of Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed seeking to<\/p>\n
quash Ext.P4 and to allow him to take part in the selection process.<\/p>\n
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866\/2009
\n                                      -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
      3.    The case of the petitioner is that the requirement to sign<\/p>\n
on the photograph affixed on the application was not a part of the<\/p>\n
notification, and was only a requirement on the application form. It<\/p>\n
is stated that this was not a mandatory condition and that at any<\/p>\n
rate, as the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 request to be permitted to<\/p>\n
cure the defect, he ought to have been allowed an opportunity to<\/p>\n
rectify the defect.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    On the other hand, the learned standing counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the respondent submits that in response to the<\/p>\n
notification referred to above, 6501 applications were received. It is<\/p>\n
stated that the Administrative Committee of the High Court<\/p>\n
considered the applications in its meeting held on 09\/07\/2009 and<\/p>\n
resolved to reject the applications with the following defects:-<\/p>\n
      “(a)  No signature on the photograph\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (b)   Copy of caste certificate not attached and fee not remitted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (c)   Age not specified.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (d)   Belated applications\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (e)   Photograph not affixed on the application.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (f)   Unsigned applications\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (g)   Candidates not having prescribed educational qualifications\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (h)   Candidates not possessing driving licence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (i)   Applications by over aged persons; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (j)   Applications not supported by fee.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866\/2009
\n                                 -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
      5.   It is stated that accordingly, 2599 applications were<\/p>\n
rejected, out of which, 1992 were for not signing on the photograph<\/p>\n
as required. According to the respondent, this was a case where the<\/p>\n
petitioners have not complied with the conditions of the notification,<\/p>\n
that required them to sign across the photograph affixed in the<\/p>\n
application form. It is stated that its inevitable consequence was<\/p>\n
rejection of their applications, and that precisely is what the<\/p>\n
respondent has done.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Apex Court in T.Jayakumar v. A.Gopu and Another<\/a><\/p>\n
(2008(9) SCC 403), while the learned counsel for the respondent<\/p>\n
relied on the judgments of this Court in Kerala Public Service<\/p>\n
Commission v. Varghese and others (ILR<\/a> 1977(1) Kerala 523),<\/p>\n
Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja Nambiar (ILR<\/a> 1978(2)<\/p>\n
Kerala 241) and Binimil K.G. v. K.P.S.C. (1997(2) KLJ 477).<\/p>\n
      7.   I have considered the submissions made.         True, as<\/p>\n
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the<\/p>\n
notification did not contain the requirement that the applicants<\/p>\n
should paste a photograph in the application form and put his\/her<\/p>\n
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866\/2009
\n                                 -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
signature across the photograph. However, Ext.P2 format of the<\/p>\n
application contains a column with the following instructions; “Paste<\/p>\n
your recent passport size photograph and sign across it (Do not<\/p>\n
staple or pin)”. Therefore, the candidates required to paste a recent<\/p>\n
passport size photograph and put signature across the photograph.<\/p>\n
Ext.R1(b) is the application submitted by the petitioner, which<\/p>\n
shows that the petitioner did not put his signature on the<\/p>\n
photograph. The petitioners in these cases do not have a case that<\/p>\n
they had affixed their signature on the photographs. Therefore,<\/p>\n
there has been violation of the instruction requiring the candidates<\/p>\n
to affix their signature.    When such a condition has not been<\/p>\n
complied with, it is up to the appointing authority to consider<\/p>\n
whether the same is to be condoned or not.         In this case, the<\/p>\n
Administrative Committee of the High Court, in its meeting held on<\/p>\n
09\/07\/2009 resolved not to condone such defects and to reject the<\/p>\n
defective applications. It was accordingly that the applications of<\/p>\n
the petitioners were rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     8.    The question is whether when the appointing authority<\/p>\n
decided to reject the applications for non-compliance with the<\/p>\n
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866\/2009
\n                                   -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
conditions of the recruitment, this Court should interfere with such<\/p>\n
a matter. In my view, this question has already been answered by<\/p>\n
this Court in the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      9.    The first judgment he relied on is the judgment of a<\/p>\n
Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v.<\/p>\n
Varghese and others (ILR<\/a> 1977(1) Kerala 523). That was a case<\/p>\n
where the applicant did not produce the original chalan receipt, but<\/p>\n
produced a duplicate copy issued under the Treasury Code. The<\/p>\n
PSC rejected the application for not producing the original chalan<\/p>\n
receipt. That was called in question and the Original Petition was<\/p>\n
allowed. The appeal filed by the PSC was dealt with by a Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment. It was held that if<\/p>\n
the PSC insists upon accompaniment of the original chalan receipt,<\/p>\n
such a requirement cannot be said to be an unreasonable one and<\/p>\n
that once the requirement is held to be not unreasonable, it is not<\/p>\n
open for this Court to go into the question further. Proceeding<\/p>\n
further, it has been held that if the PSC has prescribed production of<\/p>\n
the original chalan receipt as a requirement, non-compliance<\/p>\n
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866\/2009
\n                                       -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
therewith must result in the rejection of the application, and that<\/p>\n
the PSC cannot be expected to investigate further in a case where<\/p>\n
the application is not in compliance with the requirements. Finally it<\/p>\n
has been held thus :-\n<\/p>\n
     “We do not think that it is fair to interfere in these matters unless
\n     it is shown that has been malafides in the conduct of the
\n     Commission or any of its Officers in the matter of rejecting
\n     application or there has been cellousness or disregard of its own
\n     directions. If the circumstances indicate only a rejection of an
\n     application for non-compliance with the requirements specified by
\n     its own notification, merely because this Court feels it is
\n     unfortunate that the application happened to be rejected it may
\n     not be fair for this Court to direct the Pubic Service Commission to
\n     entertain the application.        Of course, the Public Service
\n     Commission has certainly power in appropriate cases to look into
\n     such matters and entertain applications if it finds that the
\n     circumstances justify such entertainment. But that discretion must
\n     be left to the Public Service Commission and the Public Service
\n     Commission cannot be compelled to exercise such discretion in
\n     any given cases.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10.    The 2nd judgment cited by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent is in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja<\/p>\n
Nambiar (ILR<\/a> 1978(2) Kerala 241).             That was a case where the<\/p>\n
documents which were required to be produced were not enclosed<\/p>\n
to the application. The application was rejected and the Original<\/p>\n
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866\/2009
\n                                       -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
Petition filed challenging the rejection was allowed. Allowing the<\/p>\n
appeal filed by the PSC, in paragraph 5 of the judgment, it has been<\/p>\n
held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
      “5.    In our opinion, the appellant is right in its contention that in
\n      as much as the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions
\n      stipulated in the notification regarding production of the
\n      documents in proof of possession by her of the prescribed
\n      qualifications along with the application submitted by the
\n      candidate to the Pubic Service Commission, the Pubic Service
\n      Commission was acting fully within its rights in rejecting the
\n      application, and, no interference was called for by this Court with
\n      the orders, Exts.P4 and P6, passed by the Commission. It is not
\n      contended by the first respondent that the conditions stipulated by
\n      the Pubic Service Commission in the notification were in any way
\n      unreasonable.     Such being the case, it was fully within the
\n      competence and jurisdiction of the Pubic Service Commission to
\n      determine whether the application submitted by the petitioner was
\n      a valid one in the sense of its having conformed to the stipulations
\n      contained in the notification and to reject the same on its being
\n      found that those conditions were not satisfied by the Writ
\n      Petitioner.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      11.    Following these two judgments, another Division Bench<\/p>\n
of this Court rendered the judgment in Binimil K.G. v. K.P.S.C. (1997<\/p>\n
(2) KLJ 477) holding that any violation of the conditions stipulated in<\/p>\n
the notification is a ground for rejection of the application, and that<\/p>\n
the Courts have always taken the stand that in such matters, the<\/p>\n
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866\/2009
\n                                  -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India cannot be extended.\n<\/p>\n
      12.  In view of the aforesaid binding precedents for non-<\/p>\n
compliance with the requirement of a notification, if an application<\/p>\n
is rejected, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the<\/p>\n
same, unless it is proved to be a malafide exercise of power. There<\/p>\n
is no material or pleadings in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
Apex Court judgment in T.Jayakumar v. A.Gopu and Another<\/a> (2008<\/p>\n
(9) SCC 403). That was a case, where the application did not bear<\/p>\n
signature of the applicant, and the application was received after<\/p>\n
the last date specified. However, despite the defects, the applicant<\/p>\n
was called for interview and it was thereafter that his application<\/p>\n
was rejected.      The Apex Court upheld the rejection of the<\/p>\n
application. But however directed to accommodate the candidate<\/p>\n
against the available or future vacancies. Unlike in this case, that<\/p>\n
was a case where irrespective of the defects, the applicant was<\/p>\n
allowed to participate in the selection process. In my understanding<\/p>\n
this was a case, where the Apex Court exercised its discretion under<\/p>\n
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866\/2009
\n                                  -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which discretion, this Court<\/p>\n
does not have. Therefore, the said judgment does not advance the<\/p>\n
case of the petitioner, in any manner.\n<\/p>\n
      These writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                   (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
jg<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Subash M.P. vs The Registrar General on 21 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 25449 of 2009(R) 1. SUBASH M.P., AGED 35 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN For Respondent :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. The Hon’ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC Dated […]<\/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-225015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSubash M.P. vs The Registrar General on 21 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subash M.P. vs The Registrar General on 21 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-23T07:44:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\\\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subash M.P. vs The Registrar General on 21 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-23T07:44:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3\"},\"wordCount\":1725,\"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\\\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3\",\"name\":\"Subash M.P. vs The Registrar General on 21 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-23T07:44:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subash M.P. vs The Registrar General on 21 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Subash M.P. vs The Registrar General on 21 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subash M.P. vs The Registrar General on 21 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-23T07:44:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subash M.P. vs The Registrar General on 21 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-23T07:44:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3"},"wordCount":1725,"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\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3","name":"Subash M.P. vs The Registrar General on 21 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-23T07:44:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subash-m-p-vs-the-registrar-general-on-21-december-2009-3#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subash M.P. vs The Registrar General on 21 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225015","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=225015"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225015\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=225015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=225015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=225015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}