{"id":71349,"date":"2010-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010"},"modified":"2014-06-29T18:49:41","modified_gmt":"2014-06-29T13:19:41","slug":"n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"N.D.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
N.D.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 454 of 2009()\n\n\n1. N.D.MATHEW, S\/O.NELSON, AGED 31 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SHERLY B.R., D\/O.BHANU NADAR, AGED\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR,\n\n3. DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.V.GEORGE\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :21\/01\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n     K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n               ---------------------------------------\n               W.A.Nos. 454 & 370 OF 2009\n               ----------------------------------------\n          Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                       ~~~~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n
Balakrishnan Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n
W.A.No. 454 OF 2009<\/p>\n
     The appellants are the writ petitioners.           They were<\/p>\n
persons, who have undergone training in artificial insemination<\/p>\n
of cows.     They submit, they were doing the artificial<\/p>\n
insemination work at the grass root level. While so, the<\/p>\n
Government issued Ext.P1 notification prohibiting artificial<\/p>\n
insemination by private persons. It was also ordered that with<\/p>\n
effect from the date of that order, the artificial insemination<\/p>\n
should be done only through the institutions run by the<\/p>\n
Department of Animal Husbandry. The appellants and similarly<\/p>\n
placed persons were thrown out of employment as a result of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 order. To ameliorate the grievance of such persons, the<\/p>\n
Government issued Ext.P2 order dated 19.2.2000 deciding to<\/p>\n
engage persons like the appellants as Part-time Contingent<\/p>\n
Employees under the Department of Animal Husbandry. It was<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.454 & 370\/2009               2<\/span><\/p>\n
also decided to amend the Special Rules governing appointment<\/p>\n
to Part-time Contingent Service suitably to give effect to the<\/p>\n
decision. Later, the Government by notification dated 26.12.2001<\/p>\n
published in Kerala Gazette dated 3.1.2002 amended the Special<\/p>\n
Rules for the Kerala Part-time Contingent Service in the<\/p>\n
following manner:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           \"2.    Amendment of the rules:-       In      the\n           Special    Rules   for   the  Kerala    Part-time\n           Contingent Service, in rule 3,\n\n                  (i)   after    the  fifth    proviso,  the\n<\/pre>\n
           following proviso shall not be added, namely:-<\/p>\n
                  “Provided also that this rule shall not
\n           apply in the case of appointment of persons
\n           who were engaged as Artificial Inseminators
\n           in Animal Husbandry Department for a period
\n           of one year or more and trained in Artificial
\n           Insemination     in    the  Animal     Husbandry
\n           Department”.\n<\/p>\n
                  (ii)  after ‘Note 5’, the following
\n           ‘Note’ shall be added, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “6.   Till all the Artificial Inseminators
\n           coming under the fifth proviso are appointed
\n           in   the    Animal     Husbandry     Department,<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.454 & 370\/2009              3<\/span><\/p>\n
           appointment to the part-time Contingent posts
\n           of     Artificial  Inseminators      in  Animal
\n           Husbandry Department shall be dispensed
\n           with. The rules of communal reservation and
\n           rotation shall be followed in the appointment
\n           to Part-time Contingent posts from among
\n           Artificial Inseminators.”\n<\/p>\n
                  (2)   in sub-rule (a) of rule 5 after the
\n           fourth proviso, the following proviso shall be
\n           added, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “Provided also that in the case of
\n           Artificial   Inseminators     of   the   Animal
\n           Husbandry Department the maximum age limit
\n           shall be 50 years as on the date in which they
\n           started    working   as   Part-time   Contingent
\n           Employees on daily wages”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     2.     Immediately after Ext.P2, the competent authority<\/p>\n
invited applications from eligible persons for engagement on<\/p>\n
daily wage basis.        The applications were to be submitted<\/p>\n
between 3.12.2000 and 6.12.2000. According to the appellants,<\/p>\n
they applied in time,        but, they were never considered for<\/p>\n
appointment      as   Part-time    Contingent     Employees.    The<\/p>\n
respondents have a different story.         According to them, they<\/p>\n
submitted the applications only in 2004.           The persons, who<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.454 & 370\/2009           4<\/span><\/p>\n
applied and who were found eligible, were later absorbed as<\/p>\n
Part-time Contingent Employees on the strength of Ext.P3<\/p>\n
amendment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     3.     The appellants approached this Court with the present<\/p>\n
Writ Petition, seeking a mandamus to the respondents to appoint<\/p>\n
them as Part-time Contingent Employees under the Animal<\/p>\n
Husbandry Department.        The respondents filed a detailed<\/p>\n
counter affidavit stating that the appellants applied only in 2004<\/p>\n
since their applications were highly belated, they were not<\/p>\n
considered for appointment.      The learned Single Judge, after<\/p>\n
hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition for the reason<\/p>\n
that they did not apply pursuant to the notification in time.<\/p>\n
Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the Writ Appeal is<\/p>\n
preferred.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     4.     The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that<\/p>\n
even assuming their applications were belated, they have a right<\/p>\n
to be considered for appointment under the rules. It is also<\/p>\n
pointed out that the respondents do not have a case that they are<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.454 & 370\/2009           5<\/span><\/p>\n
not qualified or eligible in terms of the rules for absorption. The<\/p>\n
only ground taken is the delay from their part to apply in time.<\/p>\n
The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted<\/p>\n
that the amendment introduced, as per Ext.P3, was a transitional<\/p>\n
provision, which is to remain in force for a limited period till the<\/p>\n
absorption of the beneficiaries of that amendment in Part-time<\/p>\n
Contingent Service.       So, applications were invited and the<\/p>\n
eligible persons were already absorbed.         Thereafter, Ext.P3<\/p>\n
amendment ceased to have any force.           The appellants were<\/p>\n
guilty of delay and laches and therefore, the Writ Petition was<\/p>\n
rightly dismissed, it is submitted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     5.     We considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.<\/p>\n
Going by Ext.P3 amendment, we find that the persons mentioned<\/p>\n
therein are entitled to be absorbed in Part-time Contingent<\/p>\n
Service without being sponsored by the Employment Exchange<\/p>\n
and only after exhausting the beneficiaries of that amendment<\/p>\n
fresh recruitment could be made from the Employment<\/p>\n
Exchange. The said right conferred by the statutory provision<\/p>\n
cannot be curtailed by fixing a cut off date for submission of<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.454 & 370\/2009            6<\/span><\/p>\n
applications for getting the benefit of that rule, by an executive<\/p>\n
order. If persons, who did not submit the applications within a<\/p>\n
stipulated time, are to be made ineligible the rules have to be<\/p>\n
amended correspondingly. No executive instruction or decision<\/p>\n
can curtail the operation of a statutory provision. If there was<\/p>\n
delay in submitting applications, their claim would be considered<\/p>\n
only belatedly and if found eligible, they would be given the<\/p>\n
benefits belatedly. By the delay, only the appellants suffered.<\/p>\n
Therefore, there is no justification for throwing out their case on<\/p>\n
the ground of delay.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     6.     In view of the above position, we are of the view that<\/p>\n
the claim of the appellants for absorption as Part-time<\/p>\n
Contingent Employees under the Animal Husbandry Department<\/p>\n
requires reconsideration, in accordance with law. Accordingly,<\/p>\n
the Writ Appeal is allowed, the judgment under appeal is<\/p>\n
reversed and the Writ Appeal is disposed of with the following<\/p>\n
directions:\n<\/p>\n
     The competent authority among the respondents shall<\/p>\n
consider the claim of the appellants for absorption as Part-time<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.454 & 370\/2009           7<\/span><\/p>\n
Contingent Employees, in accordance with law, within four<\/p>\n
months from the date of receipt\/production of a copy of this<\/p>\n
judgment. If any further materials are required to be submitted<\/p>\n
by the appellants, they shall be called upon to submit them by<\/p>\n
the said authority. In case, for any reason, any of the appellants<\/p>\n
is found ineligible for want of qualification or the required<\/p>\n
service of one year, he shall be given an opportunity to represent<\/p>\n
on those deficiencies before final decision is taken. The persons,<\/p>\n
who are found eligible, shall be absorbed in the next arising<\/p>\n
vacancies in the department. Their appointment will take effect<\/p>\n
only prospectively and the same will not affect the persons<\/p>\n
already appointed, even if, they are appointed from the<\/p>\n
Employment Exchange.\n<\/p>\n
W.A.No.370\/2009:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     7.     The point raised by the appellants herein is covered<\/p>\n
by the judgment in W.A.No.454\/2009.             But, the learned<\/p>\n
Government Pleader, who appeared for the respondents, pointed<\/p>\n
out that the appellants herein appeared to be not qualified<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.454 & 370\/2009          8<\/span><\/p>\n
having regard to the materials on record. These are matters for<\/p>\n
the competent authority to decide while considering the claim of<\/p>\n
the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     In the result, the Writ Appeal is also allowed in terms of the<\/p>\n
directions issued in W.A.No.454\/2009.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                           (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                              (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
ps<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court N.D.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 454 of 2009() 1. N.D.MATHEW, S\/O.NELSON, AGED 31 YEARS, … Petitioner 2. SHERLY B.R., D\/O.BHANU NADAR, AGED Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY … Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR, 3. DISTRICT ANIMAL […]<\/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-71349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN.D.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 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\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.D.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-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=\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-29T13:19:41+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.D.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-29T13:19:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1186,\"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\\\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010\",\"name\":\"N.D.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-29T13:19:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.D.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 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":"N.D.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 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\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.D.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-29T13:19:41+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.D.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-29T13:19:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010"},"wordCount":1186,"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\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010","name":"N.D.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-29T13:19:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-d-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.D.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 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\/71349","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=71349"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71349\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}