{"id":27023,"date":"2008-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008"},"modified":"2017-07-08T09:34:53","modified_gmt":"2017-07-08T04:04:53","slug":"claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Claramma.M.J vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Claramma.M.J vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 19147 of 2006(D)\n\n\n1. CLARAMMA.M.J,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. MEENAKUMARI.M.S,\n3. O.LEELAMANI,\n4. SANTHI.V.JOSEPH,\n5. SARADA.E.P,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE SECRETARY,\n\n3. THE DIRECTOR,\n\n4. UNION OF INDIA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.BENOY THOMAS\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.D.PREM KAMATH, CGC\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :20\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                        K. M. JOSEPH, J.\n                 --------------------------------------\n                  W.P.C. NO. 19147 OF 2006 D\n                  --------------------------------------\n               Dated this the 20th February, 2008\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Petitioners are working as Supervisors of Integrated Child<\/p>\n
Development Scheme (for short `ICDS’).                  They are Post<\/p>\n
Graduates in Subjects, like, Social Work, Sociology, Psychology<\/p>\n
and Home Science. They have approached this Court seeking<\/p>\n
the following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n
           “i)   Declare that the State Government is<\/p>\n
      bound to make appointments against 75% of the<\/p>\n
      posts of CDPOs of ICDS a centrally sponsored<\/p>\n
      scheme exclusively from Supervisors of ICDS by<\/p>\n
      promotion as per Ext.P1 directives issued by the<\/p>\n
      Central Government and to redraft its internal<\/p>\n
      recruitment rules ie. Ext.P3 (Category 7 of table to<\/p>\n
      Rule 3(a)) and Ext.P2 (in respect of Category 7 of<\/p>\n
      table to Rule 3) accordingly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
           ii)   Declare that Rule 3(a) of Ext.P3 (in<\/p>\n
      respect of Category 7 of table) and Rule 3 of Ext.P2<\/p>\n
      (in respect of category 7) in so far as they do not<\/p>\n
WPC. 19147\/06 D                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
      provide that the posts of CDPOs of ICDS<\/p>\n
      (Category 7 of Ext.P3 Rules) are to be filled up by<\/p>\n
      promotion from supervisors of ICDS (presently<\/p>\n
      Category 8 of Ext.P2), but provided a different<\/p>\n
      method of appointment by transfer from 11<\/p>\n
      categories not mentioned in Ext.P1 and further to<\/p>\n
      the extent the posts of Supervisors of ICDS<\/p>\n
      (presently Category 8 of Ext.P2) are not made the<\/p>\n
      only feeder posts for promotion to the posts of<\/p>\n
      CDPOs of ICDS (Category No.7 of Ext.P3 Rules)<\/p>\n
      and further to the extent Supervisors of ICDS are<\/p>\n
      not included in the State Services, the method of<\/p>\n
      appointment prescribed being promotion as per<\/p>\n
      Ext.P1, are directly opposed to Ext.P1 directive<\/p>\n
      issued by the Central Government and therefore<\/p>\n
      arbitrary, illegal and hit by Articles 14, 16 and 21<\/p>\n
      of the Constitution of India and hence void and<\/p>\n
      inoperative.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            iii) Issue a consequential writ of mandamus<\/p>\n
      or   direction   striking  down    the  method    of<\/p>\n
      appointments prescribed for the posts of CDPOs of<\/p>\n
      ICDS ie. Rule 3(a) category 7 of Ext.P3,<\/p>\n
      prescription of the 11 feeder posts as well as Rule 3<\/p>\n
WPC. 19147\/06 D                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
      Category 7 of Ext.P2 Rules to the extent it provided<\/p>\n
      for promotions to supervisors of ICDS (Category 8)<\/p>\n
      being contrary to Ext.P1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            iv) Issue a consequential writ of mandamus<\/p>\n
      or other appropriate writ, order or direction<\/p>\n
      directing the State Government ie. Respondent<\/p>\n
      No.1 to redraft and make the Rules in respect of the<\/p>\n
      appointment of CDPOs from supervisors of ICDS<\/p>\n
      projects of the State in tune with the declarations<\/p>\n
      sought for in prayer Nos. (i) and (ii) and Ext.P1 ie.<\/p>\n
      by reserving 75% of the posts of CDPOs of ICDS<\/p>\n
      exclusively for promotion from supervisors of ICDS<\/p>\n
      and till then to fill up 75% of the posts of CDPOs of<\/p>\n
      ICDS exclusively from supervisors of ICDS by<\/p>\n
      promotion, as stipulated in Ext.P1 and further to<\/p>\n
      give notional effect to such promotions w.e.f. the<\/p>\n
      date of coming into force of Ext.P3 Rules.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. According to petitioners, by Ext.P1, the Government of<\/p>\n
India in the Ministry of Human Resource Development, have<\/p>\n
taken certain decisions and made directions to various<\/p>\n
Governments, providing for appointment to the post of Child<\/p>\n
WPC. 19147\/06 D                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
Development Project Officer (for short `CDPO’) by filling up 75<\/p>\n
per cent of the posts from promotions from female Supervisors<\/p>\n
of ICDS projects and the remaining 25 per cent by direct<\/p>\n
recruitment. Exts.P2 and P3 are the statutory Rules framed<\/p>\n
under Section 2 of the Kerala public Services Act, 1968 in<\/p>\n
supersession of the orders prevailing. Ext.P2 are the Special<\/p>\n
Rules for Kerala Social Welfare Subordinate Service. Ext.P3<\/p>\n
provides for Special Rules for the Kerala State Social Welfare<\/p>\n
Service. The essential complaint of the petitioners is that in<\/p>\n
violation of Ext.P1, when the Statutory Rules were framed, the<\/p>\n
posts held by the petitioners were not included in the feeder<\/p>\n
category for promotion to the post of ICDS, nor is 75%<\/p>\n
reservation given for them as contemplated in Ext.P1. It is<\/p>\n
pointed out by the petitioners that Ext.P5 dated 4.10.1993, inter<\/p>\n
alia, provides as follows:\n<\/p>\n
              “With a view to ensure the desired level of<\/p>\n
        interaction, it has been decided that the posts of<\/p>\n
        CDPOs\/ACDPOs shall be reserved for women<\/p>\n
        candidates in all future appointments in respect<\/p>\n
        of all State Governments\/Union Territories. It is<\/p>\n
WPC. 19147\/06 D                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
        accordingly requested to take immediate action in<\/p>\n
        amending     the   recruitment  rules  in    your<\/p>\n
        State\/Union Territory to include reservation for<\/p>\n
        women      candidates     for  the    posts    of<\/p>\n
        CDPOs\/ACDPOs.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3. Pointing out that Exts.P1 and P5 were not implemented,<\/p>\n
certain Supervisors approached this Court with a Writ Petition<\/p>\n
which culminated in Ext.P6 Judgment and a perusal of the same<\/p>\n
would show that both Exts.P1 and P5 (which are referred to as<\/p>\n
Exts.P3 and P4 in the said Judgment) came to be accepted by the<\/p>\n
Government of Kerala and on the said basis this Court directed<\/p>\n
implementation of Exts.P1 and P5. Pursuant to the same, by<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 an amendment is brought to the Rules by which the<\/p>\n
category of CDPO came to be reserved exclusively for women.<\/p>\n
Likewise in Ext.P7(a), the category of ACDPO was also<\/p>\n
reserved exclusively for women. It is with these allegations that<\/p>\n
the petitioners have approached this Court.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   A Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2, to which the petitioners filed a Reply<\/p>\n
WPC. 19147\/06 D                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
Affidavit and also an Additional Reply Affidavit. I heard the<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as also the learned<\/p>\n
Government Pleader.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that<\/p>\n
the infraction of Ext.P1 directions by the Government of a State<\/p>\n
is in the teeth of Article 246(3) of the Constitution. According<\/p>\n
to him, Article 73 of the Constitution declares that the executive<\/p>\n
power of the Union shall be co-extensive with the legislative<\/p>\n
power of the Union. According to him, the subject of legislation<\/p>\n
is Entry 23 of List III of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
He would therefore contend that a law cannot be passed by a<\/p>\n
State Legislature in view of Article 246 against the mandate of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 to be traced to the Executive power of the Union and it<\/p>\n
must hold the field.    In other words, in effect Ext.P1 must be<\/p>\n
deemed to be possessed the characteristics of the plenary<\/p>\n
legislation made by a competent legislature which would have<\/p>\n
over-riding effect in relation to the law made by the State<\/p>\n
legislature, namely Ext.P3 Rules.      He would further contend<\/p>\n
WPC. 19147\/06 D                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
that the failure of the rue making authority to adhere to Ext.P1<\/p>\n
renders it arbitrary. He took me to Exts.P2 and P3 to point out<\/p>\n
that the post of Supervisor held by the petitioners figures as part<\/p>\n
of Subordinate Service. Petitioners can aspire for promotion<\/p>\n
only to the post of Superintendent and further as Inspector and<\/p>\n
the post of Supervisor held by the petitioners is not among the<\/p>\n
feeder categories to the post of CDPO which figures among the<\/p>\n
posts in the State service as provided in Ext.P3. He would point<\/p>\n
out that the petitioners are working from 1990 and stagnating as<\/p>\n
Supervisor and this being contrary to Ext.P1 is arbitrary. He<\/p>\n
would further submit that as evidenced by Ext.6 Judgment, this<\/p>\n
Court acted on the basis of Exts.P1 and P5 and also the<\/p>\n
acceptance of Exts.P1 and P5 by the Government and it is<\/p>\n
submitted that while the direction in Ext.P5 that the post should<\/p>\n
be filled up by women employees came to be incorporated by<\/p>\n
Exts.P7 and P7(a), there is transgression of Ext.P1 in so far as<\/p>\n
all women employees are allowed to aspire to the post of Officer<\/p>\n
and what is more, the women Supervisors are left out from<\/p>\n
WPC. 19147\/06 D                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
reckoning for direct promotion. Learned Government Pleader,<\/p>\n
on the other hand, pointed out that Ext.P1 cannot have the effect<\/p>\n
of taking away the legislative power of the State and no<\/p>\n
interference is called for.\n<\/p>\n
      6. A perusal of Ext.P1 would show that a decision was<\/p>\n
taken by the Government, no doubt, providing that appointment<\/p>\n
to the post of ICDS Officer shall be by promotion from the<\/p>\n
category of female Supervisors to the extent of 75% and the rest<\/p>\n
by direct recruitment.     However,     Ext.P1 shows that it is<\/p>\n
essentially a request addressed to the Secretaries and Directors<\/p>\n
in charge of the ICDS in all the States. The grounds on which<\/p>\n
the Statutory Rule can be challenged are well settled. Failure to<\/p>\n
implement Ext.P1 cannot be a ground to declare a statutory rule<\/p>\n
bad.\n<\/p>\n
      7. I do not think that a ground exists in law countenancing<\/p>\n
or upsetting a statutory rule on the basis that it is contrary to the<\/p>\n
executive direction, even if Ext.P1 is to be held as a direction<\/p>\n
issued by the Government. Further, I do not think that Ext.P7<\/p>\n
WPC. 19147\/06 D                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
can be treated as a direction having regard to the language<\/p>\n
employed in Ext.P1. Still further I see no merit in the contention<\/p>\n
of the petitioners that there is violation of Article 246(3) of the<\/p>\n
Constitution. Article 246(3) reads as follows:<\/p>\n
              “246. Subject-matter of laws made by
\n       parliament and by the Legislatures of States:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              (3)  Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the<\/p>\n
       Legislature of any State has exclusive power to<\/p>\n
       make laws for such State or any part thereof with<\/p>\n
       respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II<\/p>\n
       in Schedule VII (in this Constitution referred to as<\/p>\n
       the`State List'”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8. Ext.P1 cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated<\/p>\n
as a law made by the Union Parliament within the meaning of<\/p>\n
Article 246. I would think that under the constitutional scheme<\/p>\n
of things, Ext.P1 could not have stood in the way of the ruling<\/p>\n
making authority to exercise power providing for the posts and<\/p>\n
method of promotion. In fact, in the Additional Reply Affidavit,<\/p>\n
WPC. 19147\/06 D                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioners have produced Ext.P9 which is provided under the<\/p>\n
Right to Information Act. Therein, it is stated that the guidelines<\/p>\n
in Ext.P5 letter are to be interpreted to be meant for woman<\/p>\n
candidates in general.   Amendments were carried out. It is, no<\/p>\n
doubt, true that ideally going by the observation of the Union<\/p>\n
Government, promotion should be provided from the post of<\/p>\n
Supervisor in an extent of 75 per cent to the post of CDPO. But,<\/p>\n
that is essentially a value Judgment of the rule            making<\/p>\n
authority, keeping in view various aspects including the nature<\/p>\n
and functions of the posts in question. Merely for the reason<\/p>\n
that statutory rule is made contrary to the request made in<\/p>\n
Ext.P1, I would not think it could be characterised as arbitrary<\/p>\n
under Article 14. It is not as if the petitioners as Supervisors are<\/p>\n
totally bereft of any promotional avenues. Petitioners are indeed<\/p>\n
provided with several promotional avenues. It is also pointed out<\/p>\n
by the counsel for the petitioners that under the Rules, all the<\/p>\n
existing employees at the time when the Rules were made are<\/p>\n
allowed to aspire for further promotion as CDPOs if they<\/p>\n
WPC. 19147\/06 D                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
possess the qualification of SSLC and this will also stand in the<\/p>\n
way of the petitioners, who are Post Graduates getting<\/p>\n
promotion, and this will be a further hurdle for the petitioners. I<\/p>\n
see no merit in the said contention. Apparently, when the new<\/p>\n
Rules were framed, the rule making authority considered the<\/p>\n
case of the existing employees appropriately. In such<\/p>\n
circumstances, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, it is only to be dismissed and I do so. But, I make<\/p>\n
it clear that nothing stated in this Judgment will stand in the way<\/p>\n
of the Government considering Ext.P10.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE<\/p>\n
kbk.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Claramma.M.J vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 19147 of 2006(D) 1. CLARAMMA.M.J, … Petitioner 2. MEENAKUMARI.M.S, 3. O.LEELAMANI, 4. SANTHI.V.JOSEPH, 5. SARADA.E.P, Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. THE SECRETARY, 3. THE DIRECTOR, 4. UNION OF INDIA, For […]<\/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-27023","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nClaramma.M.J vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 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\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Claramma.M.J vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-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=\"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-08T04:04:53+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\\\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Claramma.M.J vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-08T04:04:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1935,\"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\\\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Claramma.M.J vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-08T04:04:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Claramma.M.J vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 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":"Claramma.M.J vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 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\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Claramma.M.J vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-08T04:04:53+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\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Claramma.M.J vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-08T04:04:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008"},"wordCount":1935,"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\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008","name":"Claramma.M.J vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-08T04:04:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-m-j-vs-state-of-kerala-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Claramma.M.J vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 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\/27023","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=27023"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27023\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}