{"id":226521,"date":"2008-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-29T18:45:26","modified_gmt":"2018-08-29T13:15:26","slug":"franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Franklin Robert John vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Franklin Robert John vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 33042 of 2007(H)\n\n\n1. FRANKLIN ROBERT JOHN, LECTURER,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. USHA NAIR, LECTURER,\n3. NARASIMHA D.S., LECTURER,\n4. V.DAMODARAN, LECTURER,\n5. JACOB ELIAS, LECTURER,\n6. ROY M.THOMAS, LECTURER,\n7. THOMAS.T., LECTURER,\n8. S.RAMDAS, LECTURER,\n9. ABDU RAHIMAN.K.U.,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE &\n\n3. THE UNIVERSITY SYNDICATE,\n\n4. THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJU JOSEPH\n\n                For Respondent  :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SC COCHIN UNIVERSITY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :03\/12\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n                   --------------------------\n                W.P.(C) No.33042 OF 2007\n             -------------------------------------\n        Dated this the       day of November 2008\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The prayer in this writ petition is for quashing Exs.P1 &<\/p>\n
P8 to the extent it excludes the past service of the<\/p>\n
petitioners in the institutions approved by the AICTE prior to<\/p>\n
their appointment under the 2nd respondent for placing them<\/p>\n
in career advancement scheme, as it is illegal, unjust and<\/p>\n
discriminatory and ultravires of Article 14 of the Constitution<\/p>\n
of India.    The petitioners pray that the respondents be<\/p>\n
directed to reckon their past service under the AICTE<\/p>\n
approved institutions outside the State of Kerala for placing<\/p>\n
them in the cadre Lecture (Senior Scale).\n<\/p>\n
     2.   The petitioners were appointed as lecturers in<\/p>\n
various disciplines of Engineering under the 2nd respondent<\/p>\n
during the period from 1999 to 2002.            Prior to their<\/p>\n
appointment, they had worked in different Colleges of<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.33042\/07                2<\/span><\/p>\n
Engineering out side the State, which are affiliated to the<\/p>\n
AICTE. Aggrieved by Clause 3.11 of Ext.P1 to the extent it<\/p>\n
excludes outside State experience for considering their<\/p>\n
eligibility for placement in the senior \/ selection grade, this<\/p>\n
writ petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     It would appear from the pleadings that the AICTE<\/p>\n
issued a notification dated 15\/03\/2000 introducing Career<\/p>\n
Advancement Scheme. Clause 7 of the said notification is<\/p>\n
as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
     “(a) Minimum length of service for eligibility to move into<\/p>\n
     the grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale) would be four years<\/p>\n
     for those with Ph.D., five years for others with<\/p>\n
     M.Phil\/ME\/M.Tech and six years for others as a Lecturer,<\/p>\n
     and for eligibility to move into the grade of Lecturer<\/p>\n
     (Selection Grade)\/Assistant Professor, the minimum length<\/p>\n
     of services Lecturer (Senior Scale) shall be uniformly five<\/p>\n
     years.<\/p>\n
     (b)    For movement into grades of Assistant Professor and<\/p>\n
     above, the minimum eligibility criterion would be Ph.D.<\/p>\n
     Those teachers without Ph.D can go upto the level of<\/p>\n
     Lecturer (Selection Grade).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
WP(c).No.33042\/07                    3<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (c)   An Assistant Professor with a minimum of eight years<\/p>\n
      of service will be eligible for consideration for appointment<\/p>\n
      as Professor.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (d)   For every upward movement, a selection process<\/p>\n
      would be evolved, for which appropriate guidelines would<\/p>\n
      be laid down by the AICTE in consultation with the<\/p>\n
      Government of India.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.    Based       on      the     AICTE      notification    dated<\/p>\n
15\/03\/2000, the Government of Kerala issued Ext.P1<\/p>\n
notification dated 18\/05\/2000 introducing revision of scales<\/p>\n
of pay of Teachers in Engineering Colleges.              Clause 3.11 of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 provides for Career Advancement scheme. In so far<\/p>\n
as this writ petition is concerned, the following sub clauses<\/p>\n
of Clause 3.11 being relevant, are extracted below for<\/p>\n
reference.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “The following past service will be considered for placing<\/p>\n
      the teachers in Senior \/ Selection Grade.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      1.   Period of service as Lecturer \/ Lecturer (Senior<\/p>\n
      Grade) in AICTE approved Engineering Colleges in the<\/p>\n
      State.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2.   Period of service as Lecturer \/ Asst. Lecturer in<\/p>\n
      Polytechnics in the State after acquiring a degree in<\/p>\n
      Engineering.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
WP(c).No.33042\/07                4<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     3.    Experience in a Scientific or Industrial Organisation<\/p>\n
     under Govt. of Kerala or Govt. of India service and State<\/p>\n
     Govt. service subject to a maximum of three years,<\/p>\n
     provided the post is comparable (the minimum qualification<\/p>\n
     for the post as same as that of Lecturer in Engineering<\/p>\n
     Colleges). The provisional \/ contract service of teachers in<\/p>\n
     Engineering Colleges \/ Polytechnic will also be counted as<\/p>\n
     qualifying service.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.    According       to     the       University,      various<\/p>\n
representations were received against exclusion of outside<\/p>\n
the State service, and the University by Ext.R2(b) took up<\/p>\n
the matter with the Director of Technical Education, who by<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(c) clarified the position reiterating Clause 3.11. It is<\/p>\n
also stated that the University had appointed a Sub<\/p>\n
Committee of the Syndicate which submitted a report that<\/p>\n
the Committee feels that the University need not make any<\/p>\n
change in the system of Career Advancement and that the<\/p>\n
existing scheme be continued till further orders come from<\/p>\n
the State Government.        The Syndicate of the University<\/p>\n
considered the report and issued Ext.P8 order dated<\/p>\n
11\/10\/2006 approving the report.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
WP(c).No.33042\/07              5<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     6.    In the meanwhile, the petitioners represented<\/p>\n
against Clause 3.11 of Ext.P1 and they were praying that<\/p>\n
their outside service should also be reckoned for placement<\/p>\n
in the senior scale.     It is stated that in reply to their<\/p>\n
representations, Ext.P5 was given to the 1st petitioner<\/p>\n
stating that his previous service outside the State cannot be<\/p>\n
reckoned as per Government Order, and that his request for<\/p>\n
placement in the senior scale can be considered only after<\/p>\n
completing the required period of service as specified in the<\/p>\n
University order. It is in this background, the writ petition<\/p>\n
has been filed mainly contending that Clause 3.11 of Ext.P1<\/p>\n
to the extent it excludes outside service is discriminatory<\/p>\n
and is offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.    The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly<\/p>\n
contends on the validity of Clause 3.11 of Ext.P1. According<\/p>\n
to him, the Government of Kerala having decided to reckon<\/p>\n
past service for placing teachers in senior \/ selection grade,<\/p>\n
without any valid or justifiable reason decided to exclude<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.33042\/07              6<\/span><\/p>\n
previous service outside the State. It is also contended that<\/p>\n
all the petitioners had rendered service in the reputed<\/p>\n
Engineering Colleges and in Universities outside the State<\/p>\n
and that these colleges are all approved by the AICTE and<\/p>\n
are rendering, if not better, equal qualitative services, and<\/p>\n
therefore there is absolutely no reason to exclude their<\/p>\n
previous service.      It is further contended that the<\/p>\n
Government have not stated any reason for sustaining the<\/p>\n
classification it has made which lacks any valid reason.<\/p>\n
     8.    The learned counsel draws my attention to the<\/p>\n
preamble to the AICTE Act, 1987 and would also contend<\/p>\n
that the classification now made is against the very object<\/p>\n
and functions of the AICTE, which includes co-ordination for<\/p>\n
the development of technical education in the country at all<\/p>\n
levels, by virtue of Section 10D thereof.         Yet another<\/p>\n
contention that is raised is that by Ext.P2, when clarification<\/p>\n
was sought, the AICTE considered the matter and decided to<\/p>\n
follow the same Rules and Regulations, which are being<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.33042\/07              7<\/span><\/p>\n
followed by the UGC in similar type of cases. Referring to<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 UGC scheme, it is contended that vide Clause 7<\/p>\n
thereof, previous service in a University, College etc. either<\/p>\n
inside or outside the State is reckoned by the UGC for<\/p>\n
placing the lecturers in senior scale \/ selection grade subject<\/p>\n
to the conditions mentioned thereon. It is contended that<\/p>\n
the AICTE having chosen to follow the UGC scheme and as<\/p>\n
the UGC does not make any distinction between the inside<\/p>\n
and outside the State service, the 1st respondent committed<\/p>\n
an illegality by excluding outside service while implementing<\/p>\n
the AICTE scheme.\n<\/p>\n
      9. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first<\/p>\n
respondent. In that counter affidavit, they have stated that<\/p>\n
the   AICTE notification on revised pay scale and service<\/p>\n
conditions in Degree Level Technical Institutions, dated<\/p>\n
15.3.2000, do not prescribe any norms for counting past<\/p>\n
service for Career Advancement. It is stated that, availing<\/p>\n
of the discretion that is conferred on the State, the State<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.33042\/07             8<\/span><\/p>\n
unilaterally     introduced the provisions in Ext.P1 for<\/p>\n
reckoning previous service       as Lecturer\/Lecturer(Senior<\/p>\n
Grade) in AICTE approved Engineering Colleges in the State.<\/p>\n
Therefore, according to the first respondent, it was an<\/p>\n
additional benefit that was granted by them. The thrust of<\/p>\n
the counter affidavit is that the eligibility of the petitioner<\/p>\n
for the benefit of Ext.P1 depends upon the conditions of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 and that, in terms of the conditions incorporated in<\/p>\n
Ext.P1, service rendered outside the State is not liable to<\/p>\n
be reckoned.\n<\/p>\n
     10. Although, in the writ petition, petitioners have<\/p>\n
challenged the classification made in Ext.P1 and the<\/p>\n
exclusion of outside the State prior service vide clause (1)<\/p>\n
of para 3.11 of Ext.P1, the first respondent has not offered<\/p>\n
any justification for such classification. However, when the<\/p>\n
case was taken up for hearing, the        learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader contended that it was taking into account the<\/p>\n
standard of education prevailing elsewhere in the country<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.33042\/07             9<\/span><\/p>\n
that the State decided to reckon only the previous service<\/p>\n
rendered within the state. It was also argued that financial<\/p>\n
limitations were    one of the reasons for restricting the<\/p>\n
benefit of previous service, to what was rendered within the<\/p>\n
State. The learned Government Pleader also placed reliance<\/p>\n
on the Apex Court judgment in State of Madhyapradesh<\/p>\n
V. Pramod Bharatiya and Ors.(1993(1) SCC 539) to<\/p>\n
sustain clause (1) of para 3.11, impugned in this writ<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
     11. When the matter was taken up today, counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner submits that one smt. Mythili, a Lecturer<\/p>\n
under the respondent University has been given the benefit<\/p>\n
of the research experience in IIT Chennai and that on that<\/p>\n
basis the benefit of Ext.P1 was extended to her. In the<\/p>\n
absence of any pleading to support this factual assertion, I<\/p>\n
do not intend to rest my conclusions on the same.<\/p>\n
     12. Obviously, the effect of clause (1) of paragraph<\/p>\n
3.11 of Ext.P1 is that, period of service as Lecturer in AICTE<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.33042\/07             10<\/span><\/p>\n
approved Engineering Colleges in the State alone will be<\/p>\n
given credit for placing teachers in the Senior\/Selection<\/p>\n
Grade. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, prior to<\/p>\n
their appointment into the service of the 2nd respondent,<\/p>\n
they had rendered service for varying periods, outside the<\/p>\n
State and that too in AICTE approved Engineering Colleges<\/p>\n
and Universities. Therefore, they were also Lecturers outside<\/p>\n
the State in AICTE approved Engineering Colleges and but<\/p>\n
for the restriction in 3.11(1) of Ext.P1, this period would<\/p>\n
have been reckoned. By confining        the benefit of past<\/p>\n
service only to Lecturers in AICTE approved Engineering<\/p>\n
Colleges in the State what the first respondent has done is<\/p>\n
to classify Lecturers   in the AICTE approved Engineering<\/p>\n
Colleges into two classes namely those who have rendered<\/p>\n
service within the State and those who have rendered<\/p>\n
service outside the State.\n<\/p>\n
     13. Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India,<\/p>\n
although classification is permissible what is impermissible<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.33042\/07             11<\/span><\/p>\n
is discrimination. In this case, a classification has been<\/p>\n
made      and the Lecturers like the petitioners who had<\/p>\n
rendered service outside the State have been denied the<\/p>\n
benefit of counting their past service and in that sense, they<\/p>\n
have been discriminated. May be it was possible for the<\/p>\n
State to justify the same either on the basis of the quality of<\/p>\n
the service that they rendered outside the State or on the<\/p>\n
basis of the qualification of the lecturers or on the basis of<\/p>\n
financial constraints or on such other valid criteria. By the<\/p>\n
averments made in the writ petition, petitioners have prima<\/p>\n
facie shown that they are equally placed like the Lecturers<\/p>\n
rendering service in the AICTE          approved Engineering<\/p>\n
colleges in the State. Once that initial burden is discharged,<\/p>\n
the burden of justifying the classification is on the State. In<\/p>\n
my view, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents,<\/p>\n
the State has not offered any justification for excluding the<\/p>\n
service rendered by the Lecturers in AICTE approved<\/p>\n
Engineering Colleges outside the State. What is the nexus<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.33042\/07               12<\/span><\/p>\n
between the classification and the object that is sought to<\/p>\n
be achieved is not forthcoming in the pleadings of the State.<\/p>\n
If that be so, I must hold that, the State has failed in<\/p>\n
justifying the classification that they have made in clause<\/p>\n
(1) of para 3.11 of Ext.P1. If that be so, the necessary<\/p>\n
conclusion that is possible is that clause(1) of para 3.11 of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 excluding the previous service rendered by the<\/p>\n
Petitioners      in the AICTE approved Engineering Colleges<\/p>\n
outside the State is a discriminatory provision.<\/p>\n
      Accordingly, clause(1) to the extent it restricts counting<\/p>\n
of previous service of Lecturers         in AICTE approved<\/p>\n
Engineering Colleges within the State will stand set aside.<\/p>\n
As a necessary consequence, the        benefits in terms of the<\/p>\n
provision shall be extended to the petitioners without<\/p>\n
further delay in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
      Writ Petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
vi                              ANTONY DOMINIC\n                                     JUDGE\n\nWP(c).No.33042\/07    13<\/span>\n\n\n\nvi.\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Franklin Robert John vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 33042 of 2007(H) 1. FRANKLIN ROBERT JOHN, LECTURER, … Petitioner 2. USHA NAIR, LECTURER, 3. NARASIMHA D.S., LECTURER, 4. V.DAMODARAN, LECTURER, 5. JACOB ELIAS, LECTURER, 6. ROY M.THOMAS, LECTURER, 7. THOMAS.T., LECTURER, […]<\/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-226521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFranklin Robert John vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 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\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Franklin Robert John vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-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=\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-29T13:15:26+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\\\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Franklin Robert John vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-29T13:15:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1972,\"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\\\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Franklin Robert John vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-29T13:15:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Franklin Robert John vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 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":"Franklin Robert John vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 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\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Franklin Robert John vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-29T13:15:26+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\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Franklin Robert John vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-29T13:15:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008"},"wordCount":1972,"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\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008","name":"Franklin Robert John vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-29T13:15:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/franklin-robert-john-vs-state-of-kerala-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Franklin Robert John vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 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\/226521","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=226521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}