{"id":76501,"date":"2008-11-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008"},"modified":"2014-05-21T11:41:49","modified_gmt":"2014-05-21T06:11:49","slug":"m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"M.Moideen vs The K.S.E.Board on 17 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.Moideen vs The K.S.E.Board on 17 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 18291 of 1999(C)\n\n\n\n1. M.MOIDEEN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THE K.S.E.BOARD\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.THOMAS ANTONY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.R.K.VENU NAYAR, SC, KSEB\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :17\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                         S.SIRI JAGAN, J.\n                  ==================\n                     O.P.No.18291 of 1999\n                  ==================\n           Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The 1st petitioner joined service of the Kerala State<\/p>\n
Electricity Board on 15.12.1962 as Welder Grade II in the<\/p>\n
Sabarigiri Project Dam Division, at Pamba. Thereafter, he was<\/p>\n
transferred to Vadasserikkara in the same Project. While he was<\/p>\n
working at Vadasserikkara, he was promoted as Welder Grade I<\/p>\n
on 15.5.1974, which promotion was regularised in June, 1975.<\/p>\n
The 1st petitioner applied for leave without allowances for five<\/p>\n
years from 14.8.1981 for employment abroad, apparently.<\/p>\n
However, in September 1983, he wanted to cancel the unavailed<\/p>\n
portion of the leave and join duty. Accordingly, he went to<\/p>\n
Vadasserikkara office from where he understood that the office at<\/p>\n
Vadasserikkara was closed down and it was shifted to Pallam.<\/p>\n
When the 1st petitioner reported at Pallam he was not allowed to<\/p>\n
join duty on the ground that the service book of the petitioner is<\/p>\n
not traceable. He states that he was asked to report at<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter, on the advice of his friends, he<\/p>\n
applied for leave for the period from 14.8.1981 to 31.1.1997<\/p>\n
also, on which date his superannuation date fell. The same was<\/p>\n
not considered. The 1st petitioner filed Ext.P4 application for<\/p>\n
o.p.18291\/99                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
regularisation of leave for the period from 14.8.1981 till<\/p>\n
31.1.1997. Since nothing was done on Ext.P4, the 1st petitioner<\/p>\n
filed O.P.No.22288\/1997, in which Ext.P4 was directed to be<\/p>\n
considered and disposed of. Since the same was not done, the 1st<\/p>\n
petitioner filed CCC No.435\/1998 in which it was reported that<\/p>\n
orders were passed on 6.10.1998.         Thereafter, Ext.P5 order<\/p>\n
dated 6.10.1998 was supplied to the 1st petitioner, wherein his<\/p>\n
claim was rejected on the ground that he was unauthorisedly<\/p>\n
absent for the period from 14.8.1981 to 31.1.1997. The 1st<\/p>\n
petitioner’s representation for review of Ext.P5 order was also not<\/p>\n
considered. Thereafter, he sent Ext.P7 advocate notice to the<\/p>\n
Secretary of the KSEB, wherein it was stated that he, on the<\/p>\n
information received from his trade union that his service records<\/p>\n
have been traced, went to the Engineers Office at Seethathode,<\/p>\n
where he saw his service records. By Ext.P8 notice, he was<\/p>\n
directed to contact the office of the Executive Engineer,<\/p>\n
Seethathode to regularise his leave applications. In spite of all<\/p>\n
this, by Ext.P9 dated 18.6.1999, the 1st petitioner was informed<\/p>\n
that the absence of the petitioner from duty for the period from<\/p>\n
14.8.1981 to 31.1.1997 is treated as unauthorised absence and<\/p>\n
his pensionary claims would be settled accordingly. The 1st<\/p>\n
o.p.18291\/99                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner filed the original petition challenging Exts.P5 and P9<\/p>\n
orders.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    During the pendency of this original petition, the 1st<\/p>\n
petitioner died and his legal heirs have come on record as<\/p>\n
additional petitioners in the original petition for prosecuting the<\/p>\n
original petition further.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The petitioners’ contention is that the 1st petitioner is<\/p>\n
not at fault for the loss of his service book and service records.<\/p>\n
According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner filed application for<\/p>\n
leave at the appropriate time. The 1st petitioner was made to run<\/p>\n
from pillar to post for rejoining duty after coming back in 1983.<\/p>\n
That being so, the petitioners would contend that 1st petitioner’s<\/p>\n
leave for the period from 14.8.1981 till 31.1.1997 should be<\/p>\n
regularized and pensionary benefits of the 1st petitioner should be<\/p>\n
settled accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    Although no counter affidavit has been filed, the<\/p>\n
learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board, relying on<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 order would try to support Exts.P5 and P9. According to<\/p>\n
the standing counsel, the 1st petitioner himself admits in the<\/p>\n
original petition that he went on leave without allowances,<\/p>\n
without getting the leave sanctioned. It is pointed out that in<\/p>\n
o.p.18291\/99                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
paragraph 3 of the original petition the averment of the 1st<\/p>\n
petitioner was that after the submission of Ext.P3 leave<\/p>\n
application, the 1st petitioner was told that his leave application<\/p>\n
would be sanctioned and in anticipation that the leave would be<\/p>\n
sanctioned, the 1st petitioner availed of leave from 14.8.1981 to<\/p>\n
13.8.1986. The learned Standing Counsel would further point out<\/p>\n
that if the 1st petitioner was not allowed to join duty on reporting<\/p>\n
for duty at Pallam in 1983, he should have reported before the<\/p>\n
Head office at Thiruvananthapuram, which the 1st petitioner has<\/p>\n
not cared to do. According to him, the service records of the 1st<\/p>\n
petitioner are not traceable, which must have been lost during<\/p>\n
the shifting of the office from Vadasserikkara to Pallam. It is<\/p>\n
further submitted that as stated in Ext.P9, the 1st petitioner’s<\/p>\n
period of service from 14.8.1981 to 31.1.1997 has to be treated<\/p>\n
as unauthorized absence and pensionary claims would be settled<\/p>\n
accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n
      6.    I am of the considered opinion that both parties are at<\/p>\n
fault. The Electricity Board is expected to have all records of their<\/p>\n
employees at all times.         Admittedly, they are not in the<\/p>\n
possession of the service records of the 1st petitioner. As such,<\/p>\n
o.p.18291\/99                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
they cannot with any amount of certainty dispute the contentions<\/p>\n
of the petitioners either way.     However, as pointed out by the<\/p>\n
learned Standing Counsel for the Board, the 1st petitioner himself<\/p>\n
admits in the original petition that he availed of the leave from<\/p>\n
14.8.1981 to 13.8.1986 in anticipation that the leave would be<\/p>\n
sanctioned. Although based on Ext.P7 Advocate’s notice, the<\/p>\n
petitioners would contend that the 1st petitioner saw the service<\/p>\n
records, the petitioners have not been able to produce a copy of<\/p>\n
the order sanctioning leave. It is settled law that a person<\/p>\n
applying for leave without allowances can avail of the leave only<\/p>\n
after the leave is sanctioned. That being so, I am unable to<\/p>\n
countenance the contention of the petitioners that the leave<\/p>\n
applied for was sanctioned. Further, the petitioners’ case is that<\/p>\n
the 1st petitioner came back in September, 1983 and reported for<\/p>\n
joining duty. If the 1st petitioner was in fact not allowed to join<\/p>\n
duty, it was difficult to believe that for 14 long years till his date<\/p>\n
of superannuation, he kept quiet although he claims to have filed<\/p>\n
representations, last of which produced before me is of 1987. As<\/p>\n
to what happened from 1983 to 1997 nothing is on record. The<\/p>\n
1st petitioner himself admits that the 1st petitioner submitted<\/p>\n
leave application for the period from 14.8.1981 to 31.1.1997<\/p>\n
o.p.18291\/99                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
also. Whether it is unauthorized absence or leave without<\/p>\n
allowances, going by Appendix XIIA of the KSR, the fact is that<\/p>\n
both would not be counted for the purpose for retirement<\/p>\n
benefits. Therefore, essentially, there is no difference between<\/p>\n
treating the 1st petitioner’s absence from 14.8.1981 to 31.1.1997<\/p>\n
as unauthorised absence or leave without allowances. Therefore,<\/p>\n
I am of opinion that this original petition can be closed with a<\/p>\n
direction that the period of service of the 1st petitioner from<\/p>\n
14.8.1981 to 31.1.1997 would be treated as not countable for<\/p>\n
the purpose of retirement benefits. Excluding that period, the 1st<\/p>\n
petitioner’s service would be counted for the purpose of<\/p>\n
retirement benefits. All retirement benefits computed accordingly<\/p>\n
shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the 1st petitioner as<\/p>\n
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from<\/p>\n
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.<\/p>\n
      The original petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
sdk+                                          S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE\n\n\n            \/\/\/True copy\/\/\/\n\n\n\n\n                                   P.A. to Judge\n\no.p.18291\/99    7\n\n\n\n\n                       S.SIRI JAGAN, J.\n\n                   ================\n\n                   O.P.No.18291 of 1999-C\n\n                   ================\n\n\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n\n\n\n\n                    17th November, 2008\n\no.p.18291\/99    8\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.Moideen vs The K.S.E.Board on 17 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 18291 of 1999(C) 1. M.MOIDEEN … Petitioner Vs 1. THE K.S.E.BOARD … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.THOMAS ANTONY For Respondent :SRI.R.K.VENU NAYAR, SC, KSEB The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated :17\/11\/2008 O R D E […]<\/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-76501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.Moideen vs The K.S.E.Board on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Moideen vs The K.S.E.Board on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-21T06:11:49+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Moideen vs The K.S.E.Board on 17 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-21T06:11:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1199,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008\",\"name\":\"M.Moideen vs The K.S.E.Board on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-21T06:11:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Moideen vs The K.S.E.Board on 17 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/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":"M.Moideen vs The K.S.E.Board on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Moideen vs The K.S.E.Board on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-21T06:11:49+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Moideen vs The K.S.E.Board on 17 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-21T06:11:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008"},"wordCount":1199,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008","name":"M.Moideen vs The K.S.E.Board on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-21T06:11:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-moideen-vs-the-k-s-e-board-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Moideen vs The K.S.E.Board on 17 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/76501","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=76501"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76501\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}