{"id":72084,"date":"2009-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-01T00:57:33","modified_gmt":"2017-06-30T19:27:33","slug":"manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Manoj.P.R. vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Manoj.P.R. vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 33458 of 2006(G)\n\n\n1. MANOJ.P.R., AGED 35 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SANJEEVAN.K.C., AGED 35 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,\n\n3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.MOHANAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :21\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n                    ================\n                    W.P.(C) NOS. 33458\/06,\n                19359, 25067 & 25400 OF 2009\n               =======================\n\n         Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The main question arising for consideration in these writ<\/p>\n
petitions is the exact date of expiry of the ranked list published by<\/p>\n
the Kerala Public Service Commission for filling up the post of Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector of Police (General Executive Branch) (Trainee) in the<\/p>\n
Police Department.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    The ranked list in question came into force on 19\/8\/06.<\/p>\n
According to the writ petitioners, the list expired on 9\/9\/09 where<\/p>\n
as Public Service Commission contends that the validity of the list<\/p>\n
expired on 01\/02\/2008.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The Rule which is required to be noticed for resolving<\/p>\n
the controversy is Rule 13 and its 1st proviso of the Kerala Public<\/p>\n
Service Commission Rules of Procedure (hereinafter referred to as<\/p>\n
the Rules for short), which reads as under:<\/p>\n
        13.   The ranked lists published by the Commission
\n        shall remain in force for a period of one year from the
\n        date on which it was brought into force provided that
\n        the said list will continue to be in force till the
\n        publication of a new list after the expiry of the
\n        minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three
\n        years whichever is earlier.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 33458\/06,
\n19359, 25067 & 25400 OF 2009
\n                                   :2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
        Provided that the above rule shall not apply in
\n        respect of ranked lists of candidates for admission to
\n        Training Course that leads to automatic appointment
\n        to services or posts and that in such cases the
\n        ranked list shall cease to be in force after one year
\n        from the date of finalisation of the ranked lists or
\n        after one month from the date of commencement of
\n        the course in respect of the last batch selected from
\n        the list within a period of one year from the date of
\n        finalisation of the ranked lists whichever is later.<\/p>\n
From the above, it is evident that the ranked list will expire on<\/p>\n
the expiry of one month from the date of commencement of the<\/p>\n
training in respect of the last batch advised from the list within a<\/p>\n
period of one year from the date of finalisation of the ranked list.<\/p>\n
It is interpreting this provision of the Rule, arguments were<\/p>\n
addressed by both sides.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   Before proceeding with the matter, I shall make a brief<\/p>\n
reference to the facts to the extent it is relevant. The post of Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector of Police (General Executive Branch) is to be filled up in<\/p>\n
the ratio of 50:50 between the direct recruits and promotees.<\/p>\n
Among the 50% earmarked for direct recruitment, 80% of the<\/p>\n
vacancies are to be filled up from open market, 10% from<\/p>\n
ministerial staff in the Police Department and               10% from<\/p>\n
graduates among the police constables. After the ranked list was<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 33458\/06,
\n19359, 25067 & 25400 OF 2009
\n                                     :3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
published on 19\/8\/06, writ petitions were filed before this Court<\/p>\n
praying for directing the authorities to report the vacancies to the<\/p>\n
PSC. Those writ petitions were disposed of by judgment dated<\/p>\n
13\/12\/2007, a copy of which is Ext.P6 in WP(C) NO.33458\/06,<\/p>\n
directing PSC to advice 245 candidates.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    Writ appeals were filed mainly contending that in<\/p>\n
addition to candidates ordered to be advised, candidates should<\/p>\n
be advised against 49 anticipated vacancies reported on 29\/6\/07.<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 in WP(C) No.19359\/09 is the common judgment in the writ<\/p>\n
appeals. In that judgment rendered on 15\/10\/2008, the PSC was<\/p>\n
directed to advise 39 open candidates out of the 49 vacancies<\/p>\n
reported during the currency of the list. Para 4 of the judgment,<\/p>\n
being relevant, is extracted below for reference.<\/p>\n
             Apart from the above, we are of the view that
\n             first proviso to rule 13 clearly provides that the
\n             rank list will continue to be in force till training
\n             of the last batch of selected candidates start.
\n             Last batch of selected candidates during the
\n             currency of the list was sent for training only on
\n             1.1.2008. Once the rank list is prepared, there
\n             is no further selection. The function of the PSC
\n             thereafter is only to advice the candidates from
\n             the select list according to the vacancies
\n             reported subject to rules of reservation. Written
\n             test, practical test, interview and all required for
\n             the selection took place earlier. So, the last<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 33458\/06,
\n19359, 25067 & 25400 OF 2009
\n                                   :4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
             batch selected for the actual vacancies reported
\n             during the currency of the list within one year
\n             were sent for training only on 1.1.2008. So, the
\n             list will expire on 1.2.2008. Since actual
\n             promotions of 59 Sub Inspectors of Police were
\n             effected before the expiry of the list by
\n             Government notification dated 28.12.2007 and
\n             out of the promotees, 39 vacancies are direct
\n             recruits of General Executive Branch allotted to
\n             the  open    candidates    (80%   of  the   50%
\n             categories), we are of the opinion that PSC
\n             ought to have advised atleast 39 candidates
\n             more from the list, if not 49, as anticipated by
\n             the Government.      Since the vacancies were
\n             already reported before the expiry of the list
\n             and the vacancies actually occurred before the
\n             expiry of the list and considering the fact that
\n             they have to be given further training for six
\n             months, we are of the opinion that PSC shall
\n             advice 39 candidates more on the open quota
\n             from the ranked list subject to the rules of
\n             reservation etc., as per law within one month
\n             from today.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
It is stated that Special Leave Petitions filed against the judgment<\/p>\n
were dismissed by the Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
       6.   Accordingly, PSC advised 39 open candidates on<\/p>\n
7\/4\/2009. These candidates were sent for training on 10\/8\/2009.<\/p>\n
Petitioners submit that the last batch advised, having commenced<\/p>\n
training only on 10\/8\/2009, in view of the 1st proviso to Rule 13 of<\/p>\n
the Rules, the list will expire only after one month from 10\/8\/09,<\/p>\n
i.e. on 9\/9\/2009.       According     to  the petitioner in    WP(C)<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 33458\/06,
\n19359, 25067 & 25400 OF 2009
\n                                :5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
No.19359\/09, 8 vacancies were available before the expiry of the<\/p>\n
list on 9\/9\/2009 and therefore they filed this writ petition on<\/p>\n
9\/7\/2009 for a direction to report the vacancies and to direct the<\/p>\n
PSC to advise candidates against those vacancies. They have also<\/p>\n
produced Ext.P3 to show that five out of the 39 candidates<\/p>\n
advised on 7\/4\/2009 did not join duty. In this writ petition, this<\/p>\n
Court passed an interim order on 21\/8\/2009 directing to report 9<\/p>\n
vacancies with a further direction not to advise candidates<\/p>\n
against those vacancies.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   In so far as WP(C) No.25067\/09 is concerned, petitioner<\/p>\n
is also aspiring for appointment against the 80% vacancies<\/p>\n
earmarked for open market candidates. Referring to Ext.P5, P7 to<\/p>\n
P10 and P12, petitioner contends that there are 38 vacancies,<\/p>\n
which arose prior to 9\/9\/09.     It is stated that out of this 38<\/p>\n
vacancies, four candidates have been advised pursuant to the<\/p>\n
direction of the Division Bench in RP No.413\/2009 and therefore<\/p>\n
the balance 34 vacancies are available and should be filled up<\/p>\n
from the ranked list.    In this case also, an interim order was<\/p>\n
passed on 28\/08\/2009 directing to report 14 vacancies. Similar is<\/p>\n
the contention raised by the petitioner in WP(C) No.25400\/09<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 33458\/06,
\n19359, 25067 & 25400 OF 2009
\n                                 :6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
also.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    As already stated, this Court is concerned more about<\/p>\n
the date of expiry of the ranked list and not about the exact<\/p>\n
number of vacancies against which candidates should be advised.<\/p>\n
This is for the reason that if the case of the petitioners is<\/p>\n
accepted, it is for the PSC to advise candidates against vacancies<\/p>\n
reported before 9\/9\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
      9.    PSC on the other hand contends that the ranked list<\/p>\n
was published on 19\/8\/06 and the normal period of one year<\/p>\n
expired on 18\/8\/2007. It is stated that last batch within the one<\/p>\n
year period was advised for training on 23\/7\/2007 and were sent<\/p>\n
for training on 19\/9\/2007. It is contended that one month expired<\/p>\n
on 18\/10\/2007 and therefore the list expired on that date.<\/p>\n
Though this is the first contention of the PSC, in the alternative, it<\/p>\n
is contended that this argument was not accepted by the Division<\/p>\n
Bench while rendering Ext.P2 judgment referred to above. It is<\/p>\n
stated that the Division Bench has found that the last batch<\/p>\n
advised during the currency of the list within one year of its<\/p>\n
finalisation, was sent for training on 1\/1\/2008 and that the list<\/p>\n
expired on 01\/02\/2008. Therefore, PSC submits that at any rate,<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 33458\/06,
\n19359, 25067 & 25400 OF 2009
\n                                :7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the list expired on 01\/02\/2008.      It is stated that in Ext.P2<\/p>\n
judgment, the Division Bench ordered to advise 39 candidates,<\/p>\n
since those vacancies were reported before 01\/02\/2008. On this<\/p>\n
basis, it is contended that list having expired on 01\/02\/2008,<\/p>\n
there arise no question of advising any more candidates from the<\/p>\n
list published on 19\/8\/06. PSC also relied on the judgments of this<\/p>\n
court in A.Sreekantan Nair v. M.K.Muraleedharan Nair<\/a> (1991<\/p>\n
LAB.I.C. 2163) and Ravidas v. PSC [2009(2) KLT 295 (FB)]<\/p>\n
contending that a list once published cannot be a perennial<\/p>\n
source of advise and that once a list has expired, it cannot be<\/p>\n
resurrected and given life.\n<\/p>\n
      10. As already seen, the proviso to Rule 13 makes it clear<\/p>\n
that the list will expire after one month from the date of<\/p>\n
commencement of training in respect of the last batch selected<\/p>\n
from the list within a period of one year from the date of<\/p>\n
finalisation of the ranked list.  In this case, the ranked list in<\/p>\n
question was finalised and published on 19\/8\/2006. The last batch<\/p>\n
advised should be within one year from 19\/8\/2006 i.e., before<\/p>\n
18\/8\/2007 and the ranked list will remain alive till the expiry of<\/p>\n
the one month from the date of commencement of the training of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 33458\/06,
\n19359, 25067 & 25400 OF 2009
\n                                   :8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the last batch so advised. Therefore, irrespective of whether the<\/p>\n
PSC has committed illegality in not advising or delaying the<\/p>\n
advise of 39 candidates requiring directions of the Division Bench<\/p>\n
of this Court, the date of expiry of the list is a definite one, by<\/p>\n
force of the proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules.<\/p>\n
       11. In the absence of any challenge to the Rule, this Court<\/p>\n
need only consider what is the outer time limit of the list within<\/p>\n
the four corners of Rule 13 of the Rules, which has been noticed<\/p>\n
above. Even if, as in this case, candidates are advised later, that<\/p>\n
will not give life to an expired list and this view is consistent with<\/p>\n
the judgment in WP(C) No.14342\/09 rendered by a learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge of this court. It is in this context the findings of the Division<\/p>\n
Bench in para 4 of Ext.P2 judgment assumes importance. A<\/p>\n
reading of paragraph 4 of the judgment shows that it is positively<\/p>\n
found that the last batch sent for training within one year from<\/p>\n
the date of finalisation of the list was on 1\/1\/2008. On this basis,<\/p>\n
it is further found that the list expired on 01\/02\/2008. If that be<\/p>\n
the position, this Court is bound by this finding and the list cannot<\/p>\n
have a life beyond 01\/02\/2008.\n<\/p>\n
       12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that if<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 33458\/06,
\n19359, 25067 & 25400 OF 2009
\n                                 :9 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the 39 candidates were advised by the PSC within the one year<\/p>\n
period, they would have been eligible for advise to the remaining<\/p>\n
vacancies. It is stated that since the candidates were not advised<\/p>\n
for the fault of the PSC, the candidates should not be deprived of<\/p>\n
their right to be advised to the existing vacancies. It may be true<\/p>\n
that despite reporting of vacancies within the currency of the list,<\/p>\n
PSC did not advise candidates. It may also be true that in such a<\/p>\n
situation, a Division Bench of this Court had to intervene and<\/p>\n
issue directions for advising candidates to the vacancies notified<\/p>\n
during the currency of the list. However, fact remains that the<\/p>\n
date of expiry of the list in question is statutorily prescribed and<\/p>\n
is definite.  If that be so, irrespective of the vagaries of the<\/p>\n
situation, the list is bound to expire on that particular date and<\/p>\n
the Division Bench of this court has found that date to be<\/p>\n
01\/02\/2008.    If that be so, this Court cannot go beyond that<\/p>\n
finding in the judgment and consequently there arise no question<\/p>\n
of advising any candidates beyond 01\/02\/2008. If this be the<\/p>\n
position, the contention of the petitioners that the list expired only<\/p>\n
on 9\/9\/2009 does not have any force.          If so, there arise no<\/p>\n
question of advising any candidates as sought for in the writ<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 33458\/06,
\n19359, 25067 & 25400 OF 2009
\n                                  :10 :<\/span><\/p>\n
petition. For this reason, I also do not find any substance in the<\/p>\n
contention that the Division Bench was not dealing with a<\/p>\n
situation after 39 candidates are advised.<\/p>\n
      13. In so far as WP(C) No.33458\/06 is concerned, this writ<\/p>\n
petition is filed by Graduates in Police Constabulary falling in<\/p>\n
feeder Category No.III. The prayers sought in this writ petition are<\/p>\n
the following:\n<\/p>\n
         (i)   To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction
\n         commanding the respondents to fill up 17 vacancies
\n         of Sub Inspectors of Police (General Executive
\n         Branch) (Trainee) from Category III of Ext.P4 list
\n         before advise and appointing candidates from
\n         Category I of Ext.P4 rank list.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (ii)  To declare that the posts of Sub Inspectors of
\n         Police (General Executive Branch) (Trainee) in Police
\n         Department are to be filled up by advising the
\n         candidates from Ext.P4 list by applying the ratio of
\n         8:1:1 in the cadre strength set apart for selection and
\n         appointment and to maintain the ratio continuously
\n         and to fill up the posts due to the Category III
\n         forthwith by maintaining the ratio.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction
\n         commanding the respondent to advise and appoint
\n         approved candidates from Category III of Ext.P4
\n         against unfilled vacancies set apart for ministerial
\n         staff (Category II) by applying the ratio 8:1:1 to the
\n         cadre strength forthwith.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      14. In so far as prayer Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, the<\/p>\n
question of reporting the vacancies at this distance of time does<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 33458\/06,
\n19359, 25067 & 25400 OF 2009
\n                                 :11 :<\/span><\/p>\n
not arise since the list has already expired. Apart from that, even<\/p>\n
if any vacancy is available to advice candidates, in view of the<\/p>\n
findings in Ext.P2 judgment of the Division Bench, such vacancies<\/p>\n
should go to 80% quota earmarked for open market candidates<\/p>\n
only. In the absence of any reporting of vacancies or advising<\/p>\n
candidates, the question of considering prayer No.2 also does not<\/p>\n
arise.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore these writ petitions are only to be dismissed and I<\/p>\n
do so.\n<\/p>\n
                                       ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
\nRp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Manoj.P.R. vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 33458 of 2006(G) 1. MANOJ.P.R., AGED 35 YEARS, … Petitioner 2. SANJEEVAN.K.C., AGED 35 YEARS, Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, 3. KERALA […]<\/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-72084","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManoj.P.R. vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manoj.P.R. vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-30T19:27:33+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manoj.P.R. vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-30T19:27:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2331,\"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\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Manoj.P.R. vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-30T19:27:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manoj.P.R. vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Manoj.P.R. vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manoj.P.R. vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-30T19:27:33+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manoj.P.R. vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-30T19:27:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009"},"wordCount":2331,"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\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009","name":"Manoj.P.R. vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-30T19:27:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-p-r-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-21-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manoj.P.R. vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/72084","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=72084"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72084\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72084"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72084"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72084"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}