{"id":234913,"date":"2009-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009"},"modified":"2018-08-13T16:08:19","modified_gmt":"2018-08-13T10:38:19","slug":"jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Jacob Mathew vs Director Of Training on 3 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Jacob Mathew vs Director Of Training on 3 April, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 22517 of 2008(E)\n\n\n1. JACOB MATHEW, MADATHIL PUTHENPURAYIL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. DIRECTOR OF TRAINING,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. ST.MARY'S INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE,\n\n3. VICAR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :03\/04\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                     T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.\n                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                     W.P.(C) No. 22517 of 2008-F\n                  - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009.\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking for a direction to<\/p>\n
respondents 2 and 3 to disburse arrears of salary as enjoined by the<\/p>\n
proceedings Exts.P1 and P2 issued by the first respondent and the<\/p>\n
Government of India.\n<\/p>\n
      2. Shortly stated, the relevant facts are the following: The petitioner<\/p>\n
was serving as the Principal of St. Mary’s Industrial Training Centre,<\/p>\n
Mannarkad under the second respondent from 9.9.1979. The institution is<\/p>\n
having permanent affiliation with the National Council for Training in<\/p>\n
Vocational Trades (NCVT). The petitioner is having degree in Science and<\/p>\n
also B.Sc. Engineering Degree.          He was getting only a consolidated<\/p>\n
allowance of Rs.550\/- per month. The issue regarding the payment of<\/p>\n
adequate remuneration to the staff engaged by private Industrial Training<\/p>\n
Centres was considered in the 31st meeting of the NCVT held on<\/p>\n
30.11.1995. Based on the recommendation, the Government of India passed<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 directing the State Governments to issue necessary instructions to all<\/p>\n
the private ITIs which are affiliated to NCVT, to pay their staff a minimum<\/p>\n
wpc 22517\/08                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
of 2\/3rd of salary being paid to the faculty\/staff members of the Government<\/p>\n
ITIs with immediate effect. This is dated 16.8.1996. The Director of<\/p>\n
Training under the State Government accordingly issued P2 circular to all<\/p>\n
the institutions.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The Association of Industrial Training Centres challenged these<\/p>\n
orders before this court by filing O.P.No.5202\/1997 which was dismissed by<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 judgment. The matter was taken in appeal and before the Apex<\/p>\n
Court. The judgment of this court was confirmed. The petitioner had earlier<\/p>\n
approached this court by filing O.P.No.27697\/2000 and at that point of time<\/p>\n
the S.L.P. filed before the Apex Court was pending and there was an order<\/p>\n
of stay in force. In that view of the mater, the petitioner withdrew the<\/p>\n
original petition with liberty to move again, if required. This is evident<\/p>\n
from Ext.P6 judgment. He retired from service on 30.11.2006.<\/p>\n
      4. After the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, again the first<\/p>\n
respondent issued Ext.P7 circular to all the institutions to grant the benefits.<\/p>\n
The petitioner submitted Exts.P8 and P9 representations along with a salary<\/p>\n
statement. But no action was taken by the second respondent. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
he filed Ext.P10 representation before the first respondent and has filed this<\/p>\n
writ petition seeking for various reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
       5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3,<\/p>\n
wpc 22517\/08                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
mainly it is contended that they are not “other authorities” as defined under<\/p>\n
Article 12 of the Constitution of India and they are not discharging any<\/p>\n
statutory functions and are not functioning with the financial aid from the<\/p>\n
Government and therefore no writ will lie against them. It is further pointed<\/p>\n
out that the petitioner is not entitled for any monetary reliefs as he has<\/p>\n
worked on agreed terms. In para 4 of the counter affidavit, they have<\/p>\n
pleaded ignorance of the recommendation of the NCVT and the acceptance<\/p>\n
of the recommendation by the Government of India. It is also contended<\/p>\n
that the Government or the NCVT has no power to fix a minimum scale of<\/p>\n
pay of teachers of private ITIs like the second respondent. In para 6, a<\/p>\n
contention is seen raised that the earlier writ petition was withdrawn by the<\/p>\n
petitioner to get the benefits offered by the respondents in the matter of<\/p>\n
payment. It is also stated that as he has received the benefits without any<\/p>\n
protest, he is not entitled for any further reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
       6.   It is not disputed that the second respondent Training Centre is<\/p>\n
affiliated to NCVT. Ext.P1 circular will show that the Government of India<\/p>\n
accepted the recommendation to provide a minimum salary to the teachers<\/p>\n
of private ITIs which are affiliated to NCVT. This was implemented in the<\/p>\n
State by Ext.P2 circular by the Department of Industrial Training. It is also<\/p>\n
informed to them that the norm regarding payment of salary is a pre-<\/p>\n
wpc 22517\/08                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
condition for getting permanent affiliation. The challenge against these<\/p>\n
orders was repelled in Ext.P3 judgment. After elaborately considering the<\/p>\n
contentions, this court       in para 7 of the judgment held that the<\/p>\n
recommendation made by the NCVT was after discussion with the<\/p>\n
representatives of the employers and employees in the 31st meeting held on<\/p>\n
31.11.1995 and therefore, the management, after having agreed, cannot go<\/p>\n
back. Regarding the obligation of the management, it was held thus:<\/p>\n
             “In the present case, the State has issued necessary circulars or<\/p>\n
      orders directing the private management to pay at least 2\/3rd of the<\/p>\n
      salary given to the Government Teachers. Petitioners cannot shirk<\/p>\n
      from their duties to pay the salary as directed by the Government. As<\/p>\n
      held by the Supreme Court, petitioners are running institutions<\/p>\n
      imparting education on the public. Public are availing of the benefit<\/p>\n
      of education from the institutions. Hence, they are bound to pay<\/p>\n
      salary as directed by the Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             This court is competent to direct the private educational<\/p>\n
      institutions to pay salary at the same rate which has been issued to<\/p>\n
      Government institutions.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Therefore, it is too late in the day to raise a contention by the respondents<\/p>\n
that Exts.P1 and P2 are not binding on them and they are unaware about the<\/p>\n
developments, etc. In the light of the dictum laid down as above, the<\/p>\n
contention that the respondents are not liable to implement Exts.P1 and P2<\/p>\n
wpc 22517\/08                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
cannot be accepted and hence I reject the same. They are bound to pay<\/p>\n
salary as directed to be paid by Exts.P1 and P2. The fact they were aware<\/p>\n
about Ext.P3 judgment is clear from the averments in para 3 of Ext.P4, the<\/p>\n
additional counter affidavit filed by the management in O.P.No.27697\/2000.<\/p>\n
The plea taken is that against Ext.P3 judgment as affirmed in Writ Appeal<\/p>\n
No.1501\/2000, S.L.P. is pending before the Apex Court and the Apex Court<\/p>\n
had stayed the further proceedings as directed in Ext.P1. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
averment in para 4 of the counter affidavit herein, that the respondents are<\/p>\n
not aware of the recommendations of NCVT to the Government as regards<\/p>\n
the salary of the employees of private ITIs is without any substance. Once<\/p>\n
the proceedings have been upheld by this court and by the Apex Court, the<\/p>\n
same is binding on respondents 2 and 3 and therefore they are bound to pay<\/p>\n
the salary to the petitioner as directed in Exts.P1 and P2. After the Apex<\/p>\n
Court judgment, by Ext.P7 they were directed to implement the orders<\/p>\n
regarding salary. The right of the petitioner to receive such salary cannot<\/p>\n
therefore be denied and it is declared that he is entitled for such benefits.<\/p>\n
      7. Then the further question is whether in this writ petition, this court<\/p>\n
can direct the respondents to disburse the amount. The contention raised is<\/p>\n
that the second respondent        does not come within the term “other<\/p>\n
authorities” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. That they are<\/p>\n
wpc 22517\/08                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
affiliated to the NCVT is not denied. In fact, the very same contention was<\/p>\n
considered and rejected in Ext.P3 judgment, relying upon the decision of the<\/p>\n
Apex Court in K. Krishnamacharvulu and others v. Sri Venkateswara<\/p>\n
Hindu College of Engineering and<\/a> another (AIR 1998 SC 295). It was<\/p>\n
held that since the institution is imparting education, an element of public<\/p>\n
interest is there in the performance of their duties. Accordingly, the right of<\/p>\n
the teachers to get parity of the pay scales is protected.      Following the<\/p>\n
above dictum laid down by the Apex Court, it was held that the petitioners<\/p>\n
are running institutions imparting education on the public and the public are<\/p>\n
availing of the benefit of education from the institutions and hence they are<\/p>\n
bound to pay salary as directed by the Government. Since this judgment<\/p>\n
stands affirmed by the Division Bench and the Apex Court, the respondents<\/p>\n
cannot now shirk their responsibility to pay salary as directed by the<\/p>\n
Government.      While imparting education, they are really exercising the<\/p>\n
Governmental functions. Since public interest is involved and as they are<\/p>\n
imparting education, they are discharging public duties. In that view of the<\/p>\n
matter, this court will be justifying in issuing a writ of mandamus to enforce<\/p>\n
the claim. As held in Ext.P3 judgment, payment of minimum salary to the<\/p>\n
staff in an institution imparting education is in the interest of public. The<\/p>\n
wpc 22517\/08                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
public are availing of the benefit of education from the institution. It is well<\/p>\n
settled that in such circumstances, a writ of mandamus could be issued to<\/p>\n
compel the institution like respondents 2 and 3 to abide by the directions<\/p>\n
issued by the authorities like the State. In fact, under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India, when any citizen or person suffer a wrong, the High<\/p>\n
Court will step in protect him, even if the wrong is done by the State, its<\/p>\n
instrumentality or authorities, body of individuals, societies      which are<\/p>\n
incorporated or not or even an individual. It is also well settled that the<\/p>\n
right of the person that is infringed, may be under the Constitution or any<\/p>\n
other Act validly made, or other binding executive orders. Exts.P1 and P2<\/p>\n
clearly provides for payment of minimum salary to persons like the<\/p>\n
petitioner. Therefore, that has become part of the service conditions of the<\/p>\n
teachers and Principals of these private institutions. That the institution is<\/p>\n
affiliated to the NCVT and controlled by the first respondent, is not denied.<\/p>\n
In that view of the matter, they cannot adopt an adamant stand that they are<\/p>\n
not bound to pay salary.\n<\/p>\n
       In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to<\/p>\n
respondents 2 and 3 to disburse the amount claimed as per Ext.P9, within a<\/p>\n
wpc 22517\/08                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)<\/p>\n
kav\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Jacob Mathew vs Director Of Training on 3 April, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 22517 of 2008(E) 1. JACOB MATHEW, MADATHIL PUTHENPURAYIL, … Petitioner Vs 1. DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, … Respondent 2. ST.MARY’S INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE, 3. VICAR, For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI For Respondent :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD […]<\/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-234913","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJacob Mathew vs Director Of Training on 3 April, 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\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jacob Mathew vs Director Of Training on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-13T10:38:19+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\\\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jacob Mathew vs Director Of Training on 3 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-13T10:38:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1645,\"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\\\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Jacob Mathew vs Director Of Training on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-13T10:38:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jacob Mathew vs Director Of Training on 3 April, 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":"Jacob Mathew vs Director Of Training on 3 April, 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\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jacob Mathew vs Director Of Training on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-13T10:38:19+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\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jacob Mathew vs Director Of Training on 3 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-13T10:38:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009"},"wordCount":1645,"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\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009","name":"Jacob Mathew vs Director Of Training on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-13T10:38:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-mathew-vs-director-of-training-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jacob Mathew vs Director Of Training on 3 April, 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\/234913","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=234913"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234913\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234913"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234913"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234913"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}