{"id":238971,"date":"2008-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-03-19T19:02:56","modified_gmt":"2018-03-19T13:32:56","slug":"o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"O.Beena vs The State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
O.Beena vs The State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 35068 of 2007(Y)\n\n\n1. O.BEENA, W\/O.PRAKASHAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,\n\n3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,\n\n4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,\n\n5. THE MANAGER, NADUVANNUR SOUTH AMUP\n\n6. THE HEADMASTER, NADUVANNUR SOUTH AMUP\n\n7. MRS.C.BEENA, D\/O.LATE GOPALAN NAIR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :09\/12\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                         ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n                        ==============\n                W.P.(C) NOs. 35068 & 35088 OF 2007\n               =========================\n\n              Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008\n\n                            J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
       In these writ petitions, what is under challenge is GO(Rt)<\/p>\n
No.4395\/07\/G.Edn     dated  24\/9\/07   produced    as   Ext.P7   in WP(C)<\/p>\n
No.35068\/07 and Ext.P3 in WP(C) No.35088\/07.\n<\/p>\n
       2.   For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the facts and<\/p>\n
documents as are mentioned in WP(C) No.35068\/07.<\/p>\n
       3.   The petitioner herein was appointed in a leave vacancy during<\/p>\n
the period 5\/10\/98 to 5\/12\/98 in the 5th respondent school. Approval<\/p>\n
sought for was rejected on the ground that the appointment was made<\/p>\n
overlooking the claims of a 51B claimant, the 7th respondent herein.<\/p>\n
Manager filed appeal to the DEO and that was allowed by Ext.P1 order.<\/p>\n
       4.   The petitioner submits that apparently the 51B claimant, the<\/p>\n
7th respondent herein, had filed an appeal against Ext.P1 to the DPI and<\/p>\n
without notice or hearing, the same was allowed. For some reason which<\/p>\n
was not disclosed to her, she was not paid salary for the period when she<\/p>\n
worked and that claim was urged by the petitioner, by filing OP 6336\/2000<\/p>\n
resulting in Ext.P2 judgment. In that judgment, this Court directed the<\/p>\n
petitioner to submit papers to the AEO and the AEO was directed to act<\/p>\n
WPC 35068 & 35088\/07
\n                                    :2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
upon the same. Against Ext.P2 judgment, the 7th respondent filed WA<\/p>\n
No.3386\/2000 resulting in Ext.P3, by which the Division Bench directed the<\/p>\n
Additional Director of Public Instructions to reconsider the claim of the<\/p>\n
petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered and Ext.P4 order<\/p>\n
was rendered by the Additional Director of Public Instructions, the<\/p>\n
operative portion of which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
            It is understood that Smt.O.Beena was appointed from
\n      5.10.1998 to 5.12.1998 at that school and she had worked
\n      at that school during this period and her appointment was
\n      also approved. But Smt.C.Beena being the 51B claimant,
\n      she is to be considered against the next arising vacancy as
\n      per existing rules. So the Assistant Education Officer,
\n      Perambra is directed to take steps to see that Smt.C.Beena
\n      is appointed in the next arising vacancy under the
\n      management concerned.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6.    Against Ext.P4 order, the 7th respondent filed a revision before<\/p>\n
the Government in which Ext.P5 order was passed by the Government<\/p>\n
allowing the revision and directing the DEO, Vadakara to take necessary<\/p>\n
steps for appointing the 7th respondent in the leave vacancy to which the<\/p>\n
petitioner herein was appointed. Ext.P5 order was challenged before this<\/p>\n
Court in WP(C) No.16798\/04. In the meanwhile, there arose a regular<\/p>\n
vacancy w.e.f. 31\/3\/2004 and the petitioner in WP(C) No.35088\/07 was<\/p>\n
WPC 35068 & 35088\/07
\n                                     :3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
appointed against that vacancy w.e.f. 14\/6\/04. WP(C) No.16798\/04 was<\/p>\n
disposed of by Ext.R7(3) judgment dated 30\/9\/05, in para 7, in so far as<\/p>\n
the petitioner in WP(C) No.35088\/07 is concerned, it has been held as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
             I have considered the rival submissions made before
\n       me, the rival pleadings and the decisions cited. Even though
\n       Smt.Smitha was issued notice from this Court, she has not
\n       entered appearance or filed pleadings.            Under these
\n       circumstances, the appointment given to Smt.Smitha by the
\n       manager after the issues arose between Smt.C.Beena and
\n       Smt.O.Beena can be ignored and there will be a direction to
\n       the approving authority to reject any proposal for approving
\n       that appointment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       7.    Proceeding further, the learned Judge disposed of the writ<\/p>\n
petition directing reconsideration of the revision filed by the 7th respondent<\/p>\n
and the Government was directed to hear the petitioner and the 7th<\/p>\n
respondent and take a fresh decision on the revision. Against Ext.R7(3)<\/p>\n
judgment, the petitioner in WP(C) No.35088\/07 filed WA No.2660\/05. That<\/p>\n
writ appeal was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment directing the Government<\/p>\n
to pass fresh orders as directed in Ext.R7(3) judgment.<\/p>\n
       8.    It was accordingly that the Government heard the parties and<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 order dated 24\/9\/07 was passed. In Ext.P7, the Government held<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n
WPC 35068 & 35088\/07
\n                                      :4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
               On detailed examination of the matter it is seen that
\n         Smt.C.Beena will be the legitimate claimant for the
\n         permanent post of language teacher (Hindi) arose in the
\n         school on 31\/3\/2004. Otherwise Smt.O.Beena will be the
\n         legitimate claimant for the post, in view of the Rule 51 A
\n         claim acquired by her by virtue of her appointment in the
\n         leave vacancy from 5\/10\/98 to 5\/12\/98.          In any case,
\n         Smt.Smitha M.K. cannot be appointed in the permanent
\n         vacancy arose on 31\/3\/2004, as there is Rule 51 B or Rule
\n         51 A claimant in the school.\n<\/p>\n
               In the circumstances, the District Educational Officer,
\n        Vadakara\/the Assistant Educational Officer, Perambra are
\n        directed to take urgent steps to appoint Smt.C.Beena, the
\n        legitimate 51 B claimant for the permanent post of language
\n        teacher (Hindi), if otherwise eligible as per rules.<\/p>\n
It is challenging Ext.P7, the writ petition is filed.<\/p>\n
       9.     Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the death in<\/p>\n
question occurred on 17\/9\/77 and that even according to the Government,<\/p>\n
application was made on 15\/7\/98 and the vacancy against which claim is<\/p>\n
raised arose on 31\/3\/2004. It is stated that the claim made is belated,<\/p>\n
and could not have been recognised under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A KER.<\/p>\n
Counsel made reference to Ext.R7(1), circular No.37833\/J3\/2001\/G.Edn<\/p>\n
dated 4\/5\/2002, issued by the Government of Kerala and also the the<\/p>\n
judgments of the Division Bench in Corporate Manager, Diocese of<\/p>\n
Thrissur v. Jayanarayanan (2003(1) KLT S.N Case NO.45) and<\/p>\n
Sarada v. Pradeep Kumar<\/a> (2004(3) KLT 1019).                  It is also his<\/p>\n
WPC 35068 & 35088\/07
\n                                      :5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
contention that once the claim of the petitioner under Rule 51A has been<\/p>\n
recognised as done in Ext.P7, the claim of the 7th respondent under Rule<\/p>\n
51B, cannot be recognised as according to learned counsel both cannot<\/p>\n
stand together.\n<\/p>\n
      10.   Learned Government Pleader on the other hand would point<\/p>\n
out that Ext.P7 is valid and proper. It is pointed out that the right of a<\/p>\n
claimant is governed by Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A KER and that if the<\/p>\n
claim is decided on the terms of the rule, the same cannot be rejected on<\/p>\n
the ground of delay. It is stated that there is no substance in the plea<\/p>\n
raised by the petitioner that the claim is belated.<\/p>\n
      11.   As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner that the claim of the 7th respondent is belated, it is true that<\/p>\n
death occurred on 17\/9\/77 and application was filed on 15\/7\/98. It is also<\/p>\n
true that the said application has been recognised in relation to a vacancy<\/p>\n
which arose on 31\/3\/2004. As contended by the learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader, Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A KER does not make any provision that<\/p>\n
the claim should be made within any time frame. However, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the     petitioner made reference to Ext.R7(1) Government<\/p>\n
circular which refers to the earlier order vide GO(P) No.12\/99\/P&ARD<\/p>\n
WPC 35068 & 35088\/07
\n                                     :6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
dated 24\/5\/99 providing a two year time frame for making claims under<\/p>\n
Rule 51B, Chapter XIVA KER. In so far as Ext.R7(1) is concerned, as is<\/p>\n
evident from Ext.R7(1), the Government themselves have ordered that in<\/p>\n
respect of claims made after 24\/5\/99, an application for employment<\/p>\n
assistance should be filed as provided in the Government order. It also<\/p>\n
clarifies that all pending application as on the date of issue of the<\/p>\n
Government order dated 24\/5\/99 shall be dealt with as per the earlier<\/p>\n
orders governing the matter. This necessarily means that in respect of<\/p>\n
applications made prior to 24\/5\/99, there is no time frame for making<\/p>\n
claim for appointment.\n<\/p>\n
       12.   In so far as this case is concerned, as is evident from Ext.P7,<\/p>\n
the application in question was made on 15\/7\/98. If that be so, that<\/p>\n
application having been made prior to the Government order dated<\/p>\n
24\/5\/99 has to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure that was<\/p>\n
prevailing prior to the Government order. Logically, therefore, the time<\/p>\n
frame incorporated in the Government order dated 24\/5\/99 is inapplicable<\/p>\n
to the claim raised by the 7th respondent in her application dated 15\/7\/98.<\/p>\n
       13.   True the judgments referred to above negatived claims under<\/p>\n
Rule 51B on the ground of delay. A closer reading of those judgments,<\/p>\n
WPC 35068 & 35088\/07
\n                                      :7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
makes it clear that the cases dealt with by the Division Bench pertain to<\/p>\n
applications made after the issue of the Government order referred to<\/p>\n
above. In the decision reported in Corporate Manager, Diocese of<\/p>\n
Thrissur v. Jayanarayanan (2003(1) KLT S.N.Case No.45) referred<\/p>\n
to above, the first sentence itself says that the application was not<\/p>\n
submitted within two years from the date of death of the deceased. This<\/p>\n
evidently has to be understood in the context of the Government order<\/p>\n
dated 24\/5\/99. Similar is the case with the judgment reported in Sarada<\/p>\n
v. Pradeep Kumar<\/a> (2004(3) KLT 1019). There also, as is evident from<\/p>\n
para 12 and 13, the Division Bench has heavily relied on the Government<\/p>\n
order dated 24\/5\/99, fixing two years time limit. If that be so, these two<\/p>\n
judgments, being rendered in the context of the situation subsequent to<\/p>\n
the Government order referred to above are not of any relevance in so far<\/p>\n
as this case is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
      14.    Admittedly, the claim of the 7th respondent pertains to a<\/p>\n
period much prior to the service rendered by the petitioner. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
claim of the 7th respondent having crystalised into a right under Rule 51B,<\/p>\n
prior to the right of the petitioner under Rule 51A, has to take precedence<\/p>\n
over the right of the petitioner. If that be so, the reasoning in Ext.P7 is<\/p>\n
WPC 35068 & 35088\/07
\n                                   :8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
liable to be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
       15.   Now, coming to the claim of the petitioner in WP(C)<\/p>\n
No.35088\/07 is concerned, in my view, her fate is completely sealed by<\/p>\n
Ext.R7(3) judgment in WP(C) No.16798\/04, para 7 of which has been<\/p>\n
extracted earlier. That judgment has become final. If that be so, the fact<\/p>\n
that she was appointed w.e.f. 14\/6\/04 in the vacancy which arose on<\/p>\n
31\/3\/2004 is of no consequence when the rival claims of the petitioner and<\/p>\n
the 7th respondent in WP(C) No.35068\/07 is concerned.               WP(C)<\/p>\n
No.35088\/07 is only to be dismissed on that ground.<\/p>\n
       For the above reasons, both the writ petitions are only to be<\/p>\n
dismissed and I do so.\n<\/p>\n
                                            ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
\nRp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court O.Beena vs The State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 35068 of 2007(Y) 1. O.BEENA, W\/O.PRAKASHAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED … Respondent 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, […]<\/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-238971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nO.Beena vs The State Of Kerala on 9 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\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"O.Beena vs The State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-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=\"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-19T13:32:56+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\\\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"O.Beena vs The State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-19T13:32:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1697,\"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\\\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008\",\"name\":\"O.Beena vs The State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-19T13:32:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"O.Beena vs The State Of Kerala on 9 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":"O.Beena vs The State Of Kerala on 9 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\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"O.Beena vs The State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-19T13:32:56+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\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"O.Beena vs The State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-19T13:32:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008"},"wordCount":1697,"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\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008","name":"O.Beena vs The State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-19T13:32:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-beena-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"O.Beena vs The State Of Kerala on 9 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\/238971","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=238971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238971\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}