{"id":760,"date":"2007-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007"},"modified":"2016-12-16T03:48:47","modified_gmt":"2016-12-15T22:18:47","slug":"manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Manager vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 26 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Manager vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 26 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 456 of 2007(D)\n\n\n1. MANAGER, I.I.V.U.P.SCHOOL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,\n\n3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,\n\n4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,\n\n5. SMT.P.V.THANKAMANI,\n\n6. T.U.ABDUL KHADER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.ESM.KABEER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :26\/02\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                                  K.M.JOSEPH, J.\n\n                    ------------------------------------------\n\n                         W.P.(C).No.456 OF 2007\n\n                   --------------------------------------------\n\n                    Dated this the 26th day of February, 007\n\n\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
        Petitioner   challenges   Exts.P5   to   P7   and   P10   orders.     He<\/p>\n
seeks   a   direction   to   respondents   1   to   4   to   recognise   petitioner’s<\/p>\n
school as established and managed by a religious minority entitled<\/p>\n
for  the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution and a further<\/p>\n
direction   to   approve   the   appointment   of   the   6th  respondent   as<\/p>\n
Headmaster with effect from 01-04-2004.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\n      Petitioner   is the  manager of  I.I.V.U.P.  School,  Malippuram.<\/p>\n
The school  was established in the year 1934 by the   Malippuram<\/p>\n
Ikhuvathul   Islam   Sabha   in   which   members   are   all   belonging   to<\/p>\n
Muslim community.  The Sabha was established in the year 1934.<\/p>\n
President of the Sabha elected from time to time, is the manager of<\/p>\n
the school.  Sabha was not registered till the year 1972.<\/p>\n
WPC No.456\/07                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
       2.       Ext.P1 is the minutes of the combined meeting of the<\/p>\n
outgoing   and   incoming   managing   committee   held   on   23-4-1967.<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 is the minutes of the meeting of the General Body held on<\/p>\n
22-10-1972   which   resolved   to   register   the   Sabha   at   the   earliest.<\/p>\n
Ext.P3   is   the   registered   Bye-laws   of   the   Sabha.     The   school   is<\/p>\n
governed by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules.<\/p>\n
According to the petitioner, the post of Headmaster is filled up by<\/p>\n
promoting   teachers   irrespective   of   their   seniority,   who   are<\/p>\n
considered   to   be   best   suited   for   the   school.       The   post   of<\/p>\n
Headmaster became vacant on 31-03-2004 and 6th  respondent was<\/p>\n
appointed.     6th  respondent   is   having   SSLC   and   TTC   with   test<\/p>\n
qualification.  5th respondent is a graduate with B.Ed and he is rank<\/p>\n
No.1   in   the   cadre   of   U.P.S.A..     Being   a   minority   institution,   the<\/p>\n
management  decided  to  appoint  the 6th  respondent, who is also a<\/p>\n
member  of   the   Muslim   community.     Ext.P4   is   the   letter   seeking<\/p>\n
approval of  appointment of the 6th respondent. 5th respondent filed<\/p>\n
petition   claiming   promotion   on   the   basis   of   seniority   and   the<\/p>\n
WPC No.456\/07                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of B.Ed.   By Ext.P5, 4th  respondent declined approval<\/p>\n
stating reasons that the manager is not entitled to protection under<\/p>\n
Article 30(1) of the constitution and also that manager has failed to<\/p>\n
prove the minority status of the school.  The third reason is that 5th<\/p>\n
respondent is senior to the 6th respondent and he is having graduate<\/p>\n
degree and B.Ed.   Petitioner preferred   appeal which was rejected<\/p>\n
by Ext.P6 order.   Against Ext.P6 order, petitioner filed a revision<\/p>\n
petition.     Ext.P7 is the order in revision.    Petitioner filed Ext.P8<\/p>\n
revision   petition   before   the   first   respondent   under   Rule   92   of<\/p>\n
Chapter   XIV   A   K.E.R.     Ext.P9   is   the   certificate   issued   by   the<\/p>\n
Tahsildar showing that school is running by the Sabha.<\/p>\n
      3.     Heard counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.     Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   would   submit   that<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to protection under Article 30(1).   He would<\/p>\n
submit that the reasons given in the impugned order that Sabha was<\/p>\n
registered after the establishment of the school is not a ground for<\/p>\n
denying   the   right   under   Article   30.   The   absence   of   status<\/p>\n
WPC No.456\/07                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
declaration as minority by Government is another reason which is<\/p>\n
impugned.       He referred to Exts.P1 and P2 to indicate that there<\/p>\n
was a Sabha.  He would further submit that the minority institution<\/p>\n
is entitled to appoint any qualified person and it is for the minority<\/p>\n
institution   to   decide   who   is   the   person   to   get   appointment.<\/p>\n
Referring to the decision of this court in  Prasad v. Philipose Mar<\/p>\n
Dilshus   U.P.  School<\/a>   (2005(3)   KLT   487),   learned   senior   counsel<\/p>\n
Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal would submit that a perusal of Rule 44 and 45<\/p>\n
would show that a person who is possessing TTC and SSLC could<\/p>\n
not  be said to be not qualified and  all that Rule 45 contemplates is<\/p>\n
a  preference  in   favour  of  the  graduates.   In  view of  the  fact  that<\/p>\n
petitioner   is   entitled   to   enjoy   minority   rights,   he   would   contend<\/p>\n
that     petitioner   is   entitled   to   appoint   a   person   who   is   junior<\/p>\n
provided that the person is qualified in terms of the provisions of<\/p>\n
Rule 45.   Admittedly 6th  respondent has SSLC and TTC and he is<\/p>\n
qualified   under   Rule   45(b),   he   submits   and   therefore   there   is<\/p>\n
nothing   illegal   in   the   appointment   of   the   6th  respondent.     Being<\/p>\n
WPC No.456\/07                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
confronted   with   the   decision   of   the   Division   Bench   reported   in<\/p>\n
2005(2)KLT 487,   learned senior counsel would contend that rule<\/p>\n
actually contemplates only preference and that the decision really<\/p>\n
does not lay down anything to the contrary.   He would point out<\/p>\n
that the embargo against appointment of an under graduate teacher<\/p>\n
would   no   doubt   apply   in   the   normal   case,   but   it   may   not   be<\/p>\n
applicable in the case of minority institution.<\/p>\n
      5.     Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   would<\/p>\n
contend that when there is a graduate teacher present, the manager<\/p>\n
has no choice even if it is a minority institution and the manager is<\/p>\n
duty bound to appoint the graduate teacher.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.     I   would   think   that   my   decision   on   the   question   as   to<\/p>\n
whether Rule 45 contemplates that when there is a graduate teacher<\/p>\n
it is only the graduate teacher who can be treated as qualified need<\/p>\n
alone be considered and answered in this writ petition.   It is to be<\/p>\n
noted that in the Division Bench in 2005(3)KLT 487 the very same<\/p>\n
question   arose.     The   Division   Bench   dealt   with   the   case   under<\/p>\n
WPC No.456\/07                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
Article 30.  The court held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 ”   However,   we   note   that   the   right   of   the<\/p>\n
          management   in   selecting   headmaster   is   only   from<\/p>\n
          among the qualified persons.  It is settled proposition<\/p>\n
          that   if   qualified   person   is   available,   the   minority<\/p>\n
          rights protected  under  Art.30(1) of  the Constitution<\/p>\n
          will not enable the management to select unqualified<\/p>\n
          persons in preference to qualified candidates.  It was<\/p>\n
          held in various Apex Court decisions that institutions<\/p>\n
          run by minority are also bound by regulations fixing<\/p>\n
          qualifications   of   teaching   and   methods   to   improve<\/p>\n
          standards   of   education   etc.   Fixing   higher<\/p>\n
          qualification for headmaster is to ensure educational<\/p>\n
          standard   and   excellence.     The   question   is   who   is<\/p>\n
          qualified amongst the contesting three candidates on<\/p>\n
          1-8-1994.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                 A   reading   of   R.45   will   clearly   show   that   if<\/p>\n
          there   is   a   graduate   teacher   with   B.Ed.   qualification<\/p>\n
          and   he   has   got   at   least   five   years’   experience   in<\/p>\n
          teaching after acquisition of B.Ed. degree, he should<\/p>\n
          be   appointed   as   headmaster   provided   he   has   got<\/p>\n
          service equal to half of the period of service of the<\/p>\n
WPC No.456\/07                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
          senior most teacher.   The appellant in W.A.1163 of<\/p>\n
          2002 was not he senior most teacher on the date of<\/p>\n
          occurrence   of   the   vacancy   and   he   was   also   not<\/p>\n
          having   five   years’   teaching   experience   after<\/p>\n
          obtaining B.Ed when the vacancy arose, that is, on 1-<\/p>\n
          6-1964.   The leave availed for study purposes from<\/p>\n
          1-6-1981   to   28-2-1993   cannot   be   taken   a   actual<\/p>\n
          teaching  experience.   He was also on  protection on<\/p>\n
          1-6-1994   when   the   vacancy   arose.     It   was   held   in<\/p>\n
          Mar   Sleeba   UPS   v.   State   of   Kerala<\/a>   (   1990(1)KLT<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          626),   that   a   protected   teacher   has   no   claim  for   the<\/p>\n
          post of headmaster as he is not a member of the staff<\/p>\n
          of that school during that time though he has a claim<\/p>\n
          under   R.51A.     So,   he   was   not   qualified   to   be<\/p>\n
          appointed as headmaster on the date of occurrence of<\/p>\n
          the vacancy, that is, 1-6-1994.  Therefore, there is no<\/p>\n
          merit in that Writ Appeal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                 Then   the   question   is   whether   the   second<\/p>\n
          petitioner   or   fifth   respondent   is   qualified   to   be<\/p>\n
          appointed   in   that   vacancy.     Admittedly,   second<\/p>\n
          petitioner was not a graduate teacher.   But the fifth<\/p>\n
          respondent   was   a   graduate   teacher   with   13   years’<\/p>\n
          teaching   experience.    It   is   more  than   50%  teaching<\/p>\n
WPC No.456\/07                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
          experience of the second petitioner.   This Court has<\/p>\n
          held   repeatedly   that   the   word   ‘may’   used   in   R.45<\/p>\n
          means   ‘shall’   and   if   there   is   graduate   teacher   with<\/p>\n
          five   years’  teaching   experience   and   more  than   50%<\/p>\n
          service   of   senior   most   of   non-graduate   teacher,   he<\/p>\n
          should be appointed as headmaster.   This is so held<\/p>\n
          in   Karunakaran   v.   DEO,   Badagara,   1976   KLN   51,<\/p>\n
          V.Abdul Rahiman, Manager, AMUPS, Poovambai v.<\/p>\n
          AEO, Balussery & Ors., ILR 1976(2)Kerala 458, etc.<\/p>\n
          and   those   decisions   are   repeatedly   followed.     Even<\/p>\n
          though   in   Rev.Fr.Daniel   v.   Director   of   Public<\/p>\n
          Instruction, 1965 KLT 927, it was held that minority<\/p>\n
          schools are exempted from R.44 and R.45 is only a<\/p>\n
          preferential   right   and   minority   management   can<\/p>\n
          appoint   senior   most   qualified   UPSA   as   headmaster<\/p>\n
          notwithstanding   availability   of   graduate   teacher   for<\/p>\n
          promotion under R.45.  But, after the above decision,<\/p>\n
          R. 45 was substituted by new R.45 with effect from<\/p>\n
          9-11-1971.  R. 44 and 45 should be read together.  In<\/p>\n
          Kunjappa v. State of Kerala 1992(2)KLT 87, it was<\/p>\n
          held that if there is a graduate teacher with B.Ed. and<\/p>\n
          required number of years of experience as mentioned<\/p>\n
          in R.45, no teacher with SSLC and TTC alone could<\/p>\n
WPC No.456\/07                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
           be   appointed   as   headmaster.     In   the   above<\/p>\n
           circumstances, only fifth  respondent was entitled to<\/p>\n
           be appointed in the vacancy that arose on 1-6-1994.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.    In   1992(2)KLT   87   learned   Single   Judge   of   this   court<\/p>\n
had to deal with the constitutional validity of Rule 45 of Chapter<\/p>\n
XIV A of K.E.R.  Learned Single Judge inter-alia held as follows:<\/p>\n
                  ” A Division Bench of this Court had occasion<\/p>\n
           to consider the preference granted to certain persons<\/p>\n
           having the qualification of graduation with B.Ed. for<\/p>\n
           appointment   to   the   post   of   Headmaster   in   U.P.<\/p>\n
           School   under   R.45   of   Ch.XIV-A   of   K.E.R.   in   a<\/p>\n
           different context in W.A.Nos. 399 and 444 of 1974.<\/p>\n
           This   Court   held   that   R.45   prescribes   the<\/p>\n
           qualification   for   appointment   of   Headmaster   of<\/p>\n
           U.P.School   and   if   there   is   a   graduate   teacher   with<\/p>\n
           B.Ed.  and  he  has  the  required  years  of  experience,<\/p>\n
           no   teacher   with   S.S.L.C.   or   equivalent   and   T.C.C.<\/p>\n
           could be appointed  as Headmaster.   In view of the<\/p>\n
           wording   of   R.45,   I   do   not   find   any   merit   in   the<\/p>\n
           contention   raised   by   the   petitioners   that   the<\/p>\n
           qualification   of   S.S.L.C.   and   T.T.C.   is   mandatory<\/p>\n
WPC No.456\/07                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
             for   appointment   to   the   post   of   Headmaster   in<\/p>\n
             U.P.School.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       8.     In such circumstances, I am of the view that when there<\/p>\n
is a teacher who is graduate and who is otherwise qualified, it may<\/p>\n
not be open even to the minority institution  to  appoint   an under<\/p>\n
graduate   teacher.     That   appears   to   be   the   principle   enunciated   in<\/p>\n
2005(3)KLT   487.     I   respectfully   follow   the   said   judgment.<\/p>\n
Petitioner is duty bound to appoint the 5th respondent.<\/p>\n
       In such circumstances, I feel that the writ petition  is liable to<\/p>\n
be dismissed.     I make it clear that I leave open the challenge in<\/p>\n
regard to finding that petitioner is not entitled to protection under<\/p>\n
Article 30(1).   Accordingly, subject to leaving open the challenge<\/p>\n
of   the   petitioner   to   the   finding   that   petitioner   is   not   entitled   to<\/p>\n
invoke Article 30, the writ petition shall stand dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                                        K.M.JOSEPH<\/p>\n
                                                                                    JUDGE<\/p>\n
sv.\n<\/p>\n
\nWPC No.456\/07    11<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Manager vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 26 February, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 456 of 2007(D) 1. MANAGER, I.I.V.U.P.SCHOOL, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE … Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, 4. ASSISTANT […]<\/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-760","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManager vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 26 February, 2007 - 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\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manager vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-15T22:18:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manager vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 26 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-15T22:18:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1800,\"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\\\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Manager vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-15T22:18:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manager vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 26 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Manager vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 26 February, 2007 - 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\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manager vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-15T22:18:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manager vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 26 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-15T22:18:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007"},"wordCount":1800,"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\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007","name":"Manager vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-15T22:18:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manager vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 26 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/760","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=760"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/760\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}