{"id":77162,"date":"2008-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008"},"modified":"2018-11-11T06:09:58","modified_gmt":"2018-11-11T00:39:58","slug":"the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 32534 of 2005(W)\n\n\n1. THE MANAGER, P.M.S.A.M.U.P. SCHOOL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION\n\n3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,\n\n4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,\n\n5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,\n\n6. MAMBAHUL HUDA HIGH SCHOOL,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.GOVIND K.BHARATHAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.R.RAMADAS\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :26\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                    ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n                   --------------------------\n                W.P.(C) No.32534 OF 2005\n              -------------------------------------\n       Dated this the 26th day of November 2008\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The petitioner is the Manager of an aided school. In<\/p>\n
this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the<\/p>\n
grant of recognition to the new unaided Lower Primary<\/p>\n
School, Upper Primary School and High School to the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent is in violation of the statutory provisions<\/p>\n
contained in the Kerala Education Act and the Rules. They<\/p>\n
are also seeking to quash Ext.P5 to the extent it granted<\/p>\n
recognition to the 6th respondent school.<\/p>\n
     2.   Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent published Ext.P1 preliminary list of new unaided<\/p>\n
LPS\/UPS\/HS to be recognized and to be upgraded during the<\/p>\n
year 2003-04, in terms of the provisions contained under<\/p>\n
Chapter V Rule 2 of the K.E.R. The 6th respondent school<\/p>\n
has been included, at serial Nos.33 & 79 of Ext.P1. The<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32534\/2005
\n                              -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner filed objections vide Exts.P2 and P3, and Ext.P4 is<\/p>\n
yet another objection filed by the teachers of the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
school. According to the petitioner, the parties were heard<\/p>\n
by the 5th respondent and it is stated that the 3rd respondent<\/p>\n
was also against the grant of recognition to the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent. It is stated that thereafter, Ext.P5 final list of<\/p>\n
schools was published by the 2nd respondent in terms of the<\/p>\n
provisions contained in Chapter 5 Rule 2(4), K.E.R, after<\/p>\n
considering the objections that were filed in response to<\/p>\n
Ext.P1. The 6th respondent school was included in Ext.P5 at<\/p>\n
serial No.31.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     Against Ext.P5, the petitioner filed a writ petition<\/p>\n
before this Court as WP(C) No.37605\/2003, and Ext.P5 to<\/p>\n
the extent it granted recognition to the 6th respondent<\/p>\n
school was stayed by this Court. When the writ petition was<\/p>\n
pending, a fresh notification was issued by the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent on 20\/02\/2004, containing the list of schools to<\/p>\n
be recognized and upgraded and this notification, however,<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32534\/2005
\n                               -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
excluded the school of the 6th respondent. Taking note of<\/p>\n
this development, the writ petition was disposed of by<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 judgment dated 27\/07\/2004 giving liberty to the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent to seek review of the notification dated<\/p>\n
20\/02\/2004. The petitioner’s objection that in the issuance<\/p>\n
of Ext.P5 and notification dated 20\/02\/2004, the procedure<\/p>\n
laid down in Chapter V Rule 2, K.E.R. was not complied<\/p>\n
with, was also left to be urged and decided by the<\/p>\n
Government.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     It is stated that in pursuance to Ext.P6 judgment,<\/p>\n
the 6th respondent filed a review petition invoking the<\/p>\n
provisions contained in Chapter V Rule 2(5) of K.E.R. On<\/p>\n
the review petition, parties were heard by the Government<\/p>\n
and by Ext.P8 order, the review was rejected.<\/p>\n
     5.     However, again, the Government issued Ext.P9 on<\/p>\n
01\/12\/2004 granting recognition to the 6th respondent<\/p>\n
school.     Though the learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
contends that once the power of review has been exercised<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32534\/2005
\n                             -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
by the Government and issued Ext.P8, the Government<\/p>\n
could not exercise the power of review for a second time,<\/p>\n
this argument is contradicted by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
6th respondent by referring to Chapter V Rule 2B, K.E.R.,<\/p>\n
conferring power of review on the Government.<\/p>\n
     6.     Be that as it may, challenging Ext.P9 the<\/p>\n
petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court as WP(C)<\/p>\n
No.36202\/2004, in which by Ext.P10 order, this Court<\/p>\n
stayed Ext.P9. Finally by Ext.P12 judgment, Ext.P9 order<\/p>\n
was quashed on the ground that the same was passed<\/p>\n
without hearing the petitioner, and on that basis the<\/p>\n
Government was directed to reconsider the matter.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered and Ext.P15 order<\/p>\n
was issued granting recognition to the school of the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent, and challenging Ext.P15 this writ petition has<\/p>\n
filed seeking the prayers mentioned above. In this writ<\/p>\n
petition also, an interim order of stay has been passed and<\/p>\n
as a result of which Ext.P15 remain stayed even as of now.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32534\/2005
\n                             -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
     7.     The learned counsel for the petitioner contends<\/p>\n
that Ext.P1 is invalid for the reason that though under<\/p>\n
Chapter V Rule 2, list published should be that of the locality<\/p>\n
where the schools is to be opened and upgraded, that was<\/p>\n
not done and that what was published was a list of the<\/p>\n
Schools.     It is also contended that no applications were<\/p>\n
invited pursuant to Ext.P5, and that the extent of land<\/p>\n
provided is inadequate, that there is a grave yard which lies<\/p>\n
in close proximity to the school campus, and that the<\/p>\n
Government could not have reviewed Ext.P8, its own order<\/p>\n
passed in exercise of its review power under the proviso to<\/p>\n
Rule 2(5) of Chapter V, K.E.R.\n<\/p>\n
     8.     However, having regard to the admitted factual<\/p>\n
position that even as per the case of the 6th respondent the<\/p>\n
application made by it was prior to Ext.P1, and that no<\/p>\n
applications were invited or submitted after Ext.P5 final list<\/p>\n
was published, I am satisfied that the issue is covered<\/p>\n
against the 6th respondent in view of the law laid down by<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32534\/2005
\n                             -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Prasad (2007(3)<\/p>\n
KLT 531).          Since I am deciding the issue only with<\/p>\n
reference to the contention of the petitioner with regard to<\/p>\n
the non-compliance of the provisions contained in Chapter V<\/p>\n
Rule 2 and 2A, K.E.R., I do not think it necessary to deal<\/p>\n
with the other contentions raised.\n<\/p>\n
     9.     Chapter V Rule 2 provides for publication of a<\/p>\n
preliminary list and after considering objections, a final list.<\/p>\n
Once such a final list has been published a notification in<\/p>\n
terms of Rule 2A inviting applications for opening of new<\/p>\n
schools and upgrading of existing schools are to be invited<\/p>\n
by the 2nd respondent. In the Apex Court judgment referred<\/p>\n
to above, this very aspect has been considered and it has<\/p>\n
been held that only in terms of Rule 2 and 2A of Chapter V,<\/p>\n
new schools can be opened and existing schools upgraded.<\/p>\n
The relevant portion of the Apex Court judgment, which<\/p>\n
concludes the issue against the 6th respondent, is extracted<\/p>\n
below for reference.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32534\/2005
\n                                     -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
      “12. Having examined the instant matter on the<\/p>\n
      touchstone of the aforementioned settled principles, we<\/p>\n
      find it difficult to hold that the decision of the appellant not<\/p>\n
      to sanction upgradation of respondent schools because of<\/p>\n
      paucity of funds was either arbitrary or unreasonable or<\/p>\n
      manifestly erroneous to warrant interference by the Court.<\/p>\n
      There is no denying the fact that opening of new schools<\/p>\n
      or upgradation of aided schools does involve considerable<\/p>\n
      financial commitment for the State. Moreover, insofar as<\/p>\n
      the present cases are concerned, indubitably, applications<\/p>\n
      for upgrading the existing schools had not been invited by<\/p>\n
      the Director as stipulated in sub-r.(2) of R.2A and,<\/p>\n
      therefore, the representations made by the respondents<\/p>\n
      for upgrading their schools could not be considered by the<\/p>\n
      Government unless it was shown that the Director or the<\/p>\n
      State Government were not finalizing the list in terms of<\/p>\n
      R.2A for some extraneous considerations, which was not<\/p>\n
      the case of the respondents.         Thus, in the absence of<\/p>\n
      Gazette notification, calling for applications for raising of<\/p>\n
      the grade of an existing school, the question of<\/p>\n
      consideration        of     respondents       applications    \/<\/p>\n
      representations did not arise. In fact, sub-r.(2) of R.2A<\/p>\n
      puts a complete embargo on consideration of an<\/p>\n
      application which is submitted otherwise than in response<\/p>\n
      to notification under sub-r.(1) of R.2A.               We are<\/p>\n
      constrained to observe that the Division Bench of the High<\/p>\n
      Court has failed to keep all these aspects in mind while<\/p>\n
      issuing the impugned directions.”\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32534\/2005
\n                             -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
     10. Apparently to wriggle out of this situation, the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the 6th respondent contended that since<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 notification contains 71 schools and the challenge is<\/p>\n
confined only to the school granted to the 6th respondent,<\/p>\n
the challenge raised is liable to be repelled. According to<\/p>\n
him, since uniform procedure has been followed in respect<\/p>\n
of all the schools and as all the schools are included in one<\/p>\n
composite notification, the whole notification alone can be<\/p>\n
challenged.       In support of this contention, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the 6th respondent relied on the judgments of<\/p>\n
the Apex Court in R.M.D.Chamarbaugwalla and another<\/p>\n
v. Union of India and another (AIR 1957 SC 628), State<\/p>\n
of Orissa and another v. Binode Kishore Mahapatra<\/p>\n
(AIR 1969 SC 1249) and Siraj v. High Court of Kerala<\/a><\/p>\n
(2006(2) KLT 923).\n<\/p>\n
     11. In the judgment in R.M.D.Chamarbaugwalla<\/p>\n
and another v. Union of India and another (AIR 1957<\/p>\n
SC 628), the Apex Court was concerned with the validity of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32534\/2005
\n                              -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
a statute and dealt with the competence of the legislature to<\/p>\n
enact the law. The Court held that with reference to the<\/p>\n
particular statute it has to be ascertained as to whether the<\/p>\n
invalid portion of the statute can be segregated from the<\/p>\n
valid portion of the statute. This necessarily means that if<\/p>\n
in a given case, the invalid part of the statute can be<\/p>\n
separated, remaining will continue to be in force.<\/p>\n
      12. In the judgments in State of Orissa and<\/p>\n
another v. Binode Kishore Mahapatra (AIR 1969 SC<\/p>\n
1249) and Siraj v. High Court of Kerala<\/a> (2006(2) KLT<\/p>\n
923), the Apex Court was concerned with the validity of a<\/p>\n
seniority list and a select list.     On the reasoning that<\/p>\n
interference with the seniority list or the select list would<\/p>\n
result in its recasting, affecting others, it was held that all<\/p>\n
persons, who are included in the seniority list and the select<\/p>\n
list, being affected parties, ought to have made parties to<\/p>\n
the litigation.\n<\/p>\n
      13. However, in this case, I must consider each grant<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32534\/2005
\n                              -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
as a separate one. At any rate even the Government have<\/p>\n
no contention that invalidation of the grant in favour of the<\/p>\n
6th respondent will, in any manner, affect the recognition<\/p>\n
granted in favour of the remaining grantees. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
invalidation of the recognition granted to the 6th respondent<\/p>\n
will not affect other grantees in any manner. If that be so, I<\/p>\n
cannot accept the plea of the learned counsel for the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent that for the reason that the petitioner has not<\/p>\n
challenged the notification in its entirety, the challenge is<\/p>\n
liable to be repelled.\n<\/p>\n
     14. Since, admittedly, the procedure contemplated in<\/p>\n
Chapter V Rule 2 & 2A has not been complied with in this<\/p>\n
case, Ext.P5 to the extent it grants recognition to the school<\/p>\n
of the 6th respondent has to be invalidated, and I do so.<\/p>\n
     The writ petition will stand allowed as above.<\/p>\n
                               (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
\njg<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 32534 of 2005(W) 1. THE MANAGER, P.M.S.A.M.U.P. SCHOOL, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, 4. THE […]<\/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-77162","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 26 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\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-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=\"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-11T00:39:58+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\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-11T00:39:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1790,\"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\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008\",\"name\":\"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-11T00:39:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 26 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:\\\/\\\/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":"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 26 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\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-11T00:39:58+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\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-11T00:39:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008"},"wordCount":1790,"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\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008","name":"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-11T00:39:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 26 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:\/\/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\/77162","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=77162"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77162\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}