{"id":58948,"date":"2010-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-23T03:16:04","modified_gmt":"2015-04-22T21:46:04","slug":"m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"M.Vijayakumar vs Director on 8 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.Vijayakumar vs Director on 8 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 35839 of 2004(N)\n\n\n1. M.VIJAYAKUMAR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\n\n Dated :08\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                          A.K. Basheer, J.\n<\/p>\n
           – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
                   W.P (C)No. 35839 of 2004\n<\/p>\n
         – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
         Dated this the 8th day of September, 2010
\n                               Judgment<\/p>\n
        Is the petitioner entitled to be appointed as part<\/p>\n
time contingent worker in Animal Husbandry Department<\/p>\n
on the strength of the erstwhile service rendered by him as<\/p>\n
voluntary Vaccinator?\n<\/p>\n
        2. The above question was answered by respondent<\/p>\n
No.1, the Director, Animal Husbandry Department under<\/p>\n
the Government of Kerala, in the negative. Hence this writ<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
        3. Relevant facts may be briefly noticed.<\/p>\n
         4. Admittedly petitioner had worked as Voluntary<\/p>\n
Vaccinator under the Livestock Disease Control Scheme<\/p>\n
sponsored by Government of India. According to the<\/p>\n
petitioner he had worked as Voluntary Vaccinator from<\/p>\n
March 26, 1986 after undergoing the prescribed training.<\/p>\n
The above Scheme was terminated by the Government on<\/p>\n
March 31, 1987.\n<\/p>\n
         5. Under normal circumstances, petitioner would<\/p>\n
not have derived any benefit out of the above contractual<\/p>\n
engagement but for the amendment to Rule 3 of the Special<\/p>\n
Rules for the Kerala Part time Contingent Service<\/p>\n
WPC.35839\/2004                  : 2 :\n<\/p>\n
(Amendment) Special Rules , 1997 (for short, the Rules).<\/p>\n
But by virtue of the amendment to the Rules referred to<\/p>\n
above, petitioner became entitled to seek entry in part time<\/p>\n
contingent post in the Animal Husbandry Department.<\/p>\n
Unamended       Rule 3     stipulated that the    method of<\/p>\n
appointment      to the various categories shall be by<\/p>\n
recruitment through Employment Exchange.<\/p>\n
          6. But by the amendment brought into Rule 3 in<\/p>\n
G.O (P).No.32\/97\/P & ARD dated December 5, 1997 the<\/p>\n
following proviso was added :\n<\/p>\n
           “Provided also that this rule shall not
\n           apply in the case of appointment of
\n           persons    who     were   engaged    as
\n           Voluntary Vaccinators for a period of
\n           one     year  or    more   under    the
\n           “Livestock Disease Control Scheme”
\n           to the posts in the Animal Husbandry
\n           Department.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        7. By yet another amendment to sub-rule (a) of Rule<\/p>\n
5, after the third proviso, it was ordered that in the case of<\/p>\n
Voluntary     Vaccinators     of   the  Animal     Husbandry<\/p>\n
Department, the maximum age limit shall be 50 years as on<\/p>\n
the date on which they started working as part time<\/p>\n
contingent employees on daily wages. Still further, an<\/p>\n
WPC.35839\/2004                 : 3 :\n<\/p>\n
additional Note was also incorporated in the Rules to the<\/p>\n
effect that appointment to part time contingent posts in<\/p>\n
Animal Husbandry Department shall be dispensed with till<\/p>\n
all the Voluntary Vaccinators coming under the 4th proviso<\/p>\n
are appointed in the Department.\n<\/p>\n
       8. Petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application before<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 seeking appointment as a part time<\/p>\n
contingent employee on the basis of his erstwhile service<\/p>\n
as Voluntary Vaccinator for a period of one year,<\/p>\n
particularly in the light of the amendments to Rule 3<\/p>\n
referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
       9. To cut a long story short, respondent No.1 rejected<\/p>\n
the application holding that petitioner did not have the<\/p>\n
minimum period of one year’s service as Voluntary<\/p>\n
Vaccinator as provided under the amended Rule. Ext.P4 is<\/p>\n
the order passed by the Director in this regard. Though<\/p>\n
petitioner produced his service particulars as Voluntary<\/p>\n
Vaccinator to show that he had worked for more than a<\/p>\n
year, respondent No.1 was not apparently impressed. He<\/p>\n
issued Ext.P7 communication to the petitioner pointing out<\/p>\n
another reason to reject his application. The Director found<\/p>\n
that a part time employee can be appointed only if<\/p>\n
WPC.35839\/2004                 : 4 :\n<\/p>\n
sponsored through       Employment Exchange as per the<\/p>\n
Rules. The said communication was sought to be quashed<\/p>\n
in the writ petition. The petitioner also prayed for other<\/p>\n
consequential reliefs for his appointment as a part time<\/p>\n
contingent employee.\n<\/p>\n
            10. The respondents have filed three counter<\/p>\n
affidavits in this case. The sum and substance of the<\/p>\n
contention raised by them is that :\n<\/p>\n
        (a) Petitioner had worked only for 221 days as<\/p>\n
Voluntary Vaccinator during the period from March 26,<\/p>\n
1986 till March 31, 1987 and<\/p>\n
       (b) Ext.P9 certificate allegedly issued by the Senior<\/p>\n
Veterinary Surgeon attached to Varkala Veterinary hospital<\/p>\n
certifying that petitioner had worked in that hospital during<\/p>\n
the period from March 7, 1987 to September 2, 1987 being<\/p>\n
a bogus and fabricated document, his contention that he had<\/p>\n
worked as a Voluntary Vaccinator for 1 = years cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted.   Incidentally it was also pointed out that the<\/p>\n
Scheme had already been scrapped on March 31, 1987<\/p>\n
itself.\n<\/p>\n
          11.   When this writ petition had come up for<\/p>\n
consideration before me earlier, I had called for the relevant<\/p>\n
WPC.35839\/2004                                          : 5 :\n<\/p>\n
files. I have perused them.\n<\/p>\n
                   12. Before I make any reference to the relevant<\/p>\n
papers in the file, it may at once be noticed that respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 in his counter affidavit dated December 11, 2006 had<\/p>\n
given the details of the service rendered by the petitioner as<\/p>\n
Voluntary Vaccinator as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
                                 Institution under which the petr.\n<\/p>\n
 Period                        Served as Voluntary Vaccinator                           No. of days.\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————————————————–
\n26.3.86 to 16.4.86              Veterinary Dispensary
\n                                 Chemmaruthi                                                 22<\/span><\/p>\n
18.4.86 to 4.6.86                              Do.                                           48<\/span><\/p>\n
1.11.86 to 31.3.87               Veterinary Dispensary
\n                                 Varkala
\n                                 Veterinary Dispensary
\n                                 Chemmaruthi                                                151<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                       —————-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                Total                        221<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                                        —————\n<\/p>\n
               13. But in spite of the above categoric admission<\/p>\n
made by respondent No.1, it is now contended by him that<\/p>\n
since the petitioner had worked only for 221 days during the<\/p>\n
period referred to above, his tenure of service cannot be<\/p>\n
reckoned as one year as provided in the amended proviso to<\/p>\n
Rule 3 of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
       14. A perusal of the amended proviso will undoubtedly<\/p>\n
show that the stipulation in the amended rule is only that a<\/p>\n
WPC.35839\/2004                 : 6 :\n<\/p>\n
Voluntary Vaccinator ought to have worked for a period of<\/p>\n
one year or more under the Livestock Disease Control<\/p>\n
Scheme. Since it is candidly admitted by respondent No.1<\/p>\n
that the petitioner had worked during the period between<\/p>\n
March 26, 1986 till March 31, 1987, in my view, there can<\/p>\n
be no impediment for the petitioner to seek employment as a<\/p>\n
contingent employee.\n<\/p>\n
        15. Significantly, respondent No.1 seems to have<\/p>\n
been aware of this aspect because in Ext.P7 the only reason<\/p>\n
stated by this respondent to reject the application of the<\/p>\n
petitioner is that his name had not been sponsored by the<\/p>\n
Employment Exchange. There is no reference to the newly<\/p>\n
added proviso in Ext.P7. There is also no case for<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 in Ext.P7 that petitioner did not have the<\/p>\n
requisite service for a period of one year as Voluntary<\/p>\n
Vaccinator.\n<\/p>\n
     16. It may be true that Ext.P9 certificate issued by the<\/p>\n
Veterinary Surgeon attached to Varkala Veterinary Hospital<\/p>\n
cannot be relied on, especially since the said Officer has<\/p>\n
placed an affidavit on record before this Court that he had<\/p>\n
issued the said certificate due to an oversight and without<\/p>\n
verifying or perusing the relevant records. But the fact<\/p>\n
WPC.35839\/2004                 : 7 :\n<\/p>\n
remains that petitioner had worked as Voluntary Vaccinator<\/p>\n
for one year as is conceded by respondent No.1. In that<\/p>\n
view of the matter the stand taken by respondent No.1 that<\/p>\n
petitioner was not entitled to get appointment as a part time<\/p>\n
contingent employee on the strength of his past service as<\/p>\n
Voluntary Vaccinator cannot be sustained at all.<\/p>\n
           17.   In this context I may refer to yet another<\/p>\n
aspect which will show that the attempt of the respondent<\/p>\n
has been to deny employment to the petitioner under one<\/p>\n
pretext or the other as rightly contended by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel. In one of the counter affidavits it is asserted by<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 that attendance register was not being<\/p>\n
maintained in any of the institutions in respect of Voluntary<\/p>\n
Vaccinators. But now respondent No.1 has referred to the<\/p>\n
number of days the petitioner had worked right from<\/p>\n
March 26, 1986.     How did the Department get the exact<\/p>\n
number of days on which the petitioner worked? There is no<\/p>\n
answer. The files produced before me will show the details<\/p>\n
of payment made by the Department to the petitioner on<\/p>\n
the basis of the number of vaccinations given by him in the<\/p>\n
course of his duty. A register was in fact being maintained<\/p>\n
by the institutions concerned,     in which the number of<\/p>\n
WPC.35839\/2004                    : 8 :\n<\/p>\n
vaccinations was being entered on daily basis.<\/p>\n
       18. I do not propose to refer to the various other<\/p>\n
contentions raised by the respondents in their counter<\/p>\n
affidavits since in my view they are not relevant or<\/p>\n
pertinent. Suffice it to say that there is considerable force in<\/p>\n
the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
that the respondents were bent upon to deny employment<\/p>\n
to the petitioner which he was legitimately entitled to get.<\/p>\n
      19. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
and having perused the materials available on record I am<\/p>\n
satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.<\/p>\n
       20. Therefore Ext.P7 issued by respondent No.1 is<\/p>\n
quashed. It is held that petitioner is entitled to be appointed<\/p>\n
as a part time contingent employee              in the Animal<\/p>\n
Husbandry Department with immediate effect. He will be<\/p>\n
entitled to get service benefits like seniority in the service at<\/p>\n
least with effect from December 9, 2004 the date on which<\/p>\n
this writ petition was filed. It is made clear that he will not<\/p>\n
be entitled to any remuneration or such other monetary<\/p>\n
benefits from that date.\n<\/p>\n
       21. Respondent No.1 shall issue appropriate orders<\/p>\n
appointing the petitioner as a part time contingent employee<\/p>\n
WPC.35839\/2004               : 9 :\n<\/p>\n
in the Department within one month from the date of receipt<\/p>\n
of a copy of this judgment. Respondents shall pay a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- as costs to the petitioner. Costs shall be paid<\/p>\n
within three months from today.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 A.K. Basheer
\n                                     Judge.\n<\/p>\n
an.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.Vijayakumar vs Director on 8 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 35839 of 2004(N) 1. M.VIJAYAKUMAR, … Petitioner Vs 1. DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER Dated :08\/09\/2010 O R […]<\/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-58948","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.Vijayakumar vs Director on 8 September, 2010 - 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\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Vijayakumar vs Director on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-22T21:46:04+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Vijayakumar vs Director on 8 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-22T21:46:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1563,\"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\\\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010\",\"name\":\"M.Vijayakumar vs Director on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-22T21:46:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Vijayakumar vs Director on 8 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"M.Vijayakumar vs Director on 8 September, 2010 - 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\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Vijayakumar vs Director on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-22T21:46:04+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Vijayakumar vs Director on 8 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-22T21:46:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010"},"wordCount":1563,"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\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010","name":"M.Vijayakumar vs Director on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-22T21:46:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-vijayakumar-vs-director-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Vijayakumar vs Director on 8 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/58948","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=58948"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58948\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58948"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58948"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58948"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}