{"id":83998,"date":"2009-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2"},"modified":"2014-06-29T14:48:23","modified_gmt":"2014-06-29T09:18:23","slug":"arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Arunkrishnan.T.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 11 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Arunkrishnan.T.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 11 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 36528 of 2008(W)\n\n\n1. ARUNKRISHNAN.T.P, AGED,24 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. DEEPESH.D.M, AGED, 24 YEARS,\n3. REENA.V, AGED 24 YEARS,W\/O.DR.JERALD\n4. ANISHA.K.S, AGED, 24 YEARS,\n5. SRUTHI.V.M, AGED 23 YEARS,\n6. RUMSHEED.N, AGED 24 YEARS,S\/O.AHMED KOYA\n7. VIGEESH.N, AGED,25 YEARS,\n8. SHAHUL HAMEED.T, AGED 25 YEARS,\n9. ANJU UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 25 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,\n\n3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE\n\n4. THKE PRINCIPAL & CONTROLLING OFFICER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.T.DINESH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :11\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                                                                                        (C.R.)\n\n                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.\n              ........................................................................\n                   W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008\n                                               &\n                      W.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008\n             .........................................................................\n                      Dated this the 11th March, 2009\n\n\n\n                                J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The challenge in both these Writ Petitions is with regard to<\/p>\n
the fixation of the last date for completing the Internship as on<\/p>\n
‘31.10.2008’ in        Ext.P1 prospectus issued by the fourth<\/p>\n
respondent with regard to the admission to the Post Graduate<\/p>\n
Course    of  M.D.(Homoeo)                   offered           in      the            Government<\/p>\n
Homoeopathic Medical Colleges at Thiruvananthapuram and<\/p>\n
Kozhikode. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 36528 of 2008 have<\/p>\n
completed their Degree Course-B.H.M.S. in the                                         Government<\/p>\n
Homoeopathic Medical College, Kozhikode under the Calicut<\/p>\n
University; whereas the petitioners                           in the other case have<\/p>\n
completed the similar course in different institutions such as Dr.<\/p>\n
Padiar Memorial Homoeopathic Medical College, Chottanikkara<\/p>\n
and Athurasramam N.S.S. Homoeopathic Medical College,<\/p>\n
Kottayam, both under the M.G. University.                                        All the above<\/p>\n
petitioners secured admission to the B.H.M.S. Course in the year<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
‘2002’ based on the ‘common entrance test’ conducted by the<\/p>\n
third respondent and     the allotment to the different colleges<\/p>\n
under different Universities was of course on the basis of the<\/p>\n
merit and option exercised by such candidates.<\/p>\n
     2. As evident from Ext. P12 produced in W.P(C) 36528 of<\/p>\n
2008, the date of starting of the B.H.M.S.- 2002 batch in the<\/p>\n
Government Homoeopathic Medical College was on 17.09.2002,<\/p>\n
the date of the first year examination of the above batch was on<\/p>\n
16.06.2004     and the dates of promotion to the second year,<\/p>\n
third year and to the fourth year B.H.M.S. were 04.10.2004,<\/p>\n
04.10.2005 and 04.10.2006 respectively. It is also evident from<\/p>\n
Ext.P12 that the final year examination was conducted on<\/p>\n
04.10.2007 and the final year result was published on<\/p>\n
27.11.2007.     After coming out successful in the final year<\/p>\n
examination, the petitioners   obtained their provisional degree<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
certificate, on the basis of which they secured provisional<\/p>\n
registration from the Travancore-Cochin Council of Homoeopathic<\/p>\n
Medicines, which is a pre-requisite for commencement of<\/p>\n
‘Internship’, and it was actually started on 06.12.2007 as shown<\/p>\n
in Ext.P12.   The Internship was completed on 05.12.2008 . On<\/p>\n
the basis of such credentials, the petitioners are seeking<\/p>\n
admission for the Post Graduate Course in M.D. (Homoeo) as<\/p>\n
stated herein before.\n<\/p>\n
      3. With regard to the petitioners in W.P(C) 36529 of 2008,<\/p>\n
similar statistics are available from Exts. P11 and P12 issued by<\/p>\n
the concerned Medical Colleges . As borne by Ext.P11 issued by<\/p>\n
Dr.   Padiar   Memorial    Homoeopathic    Medical  College,  the<\/p>\n
Internship for 2002-08        batch was commenced        only on<\/p>\n
18.01.2008 and the normal duration of One Year Internship as<\/p>\n
per the norms of the Central Council of Homoeopathy was to be<\/p>\n
over only on 17.01.2009.        As stated therein, the final year<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
B.H.M.S. Class was completed only on 09.07.2007; the result of<\/p>\n
the final year examination was published on 11.01.2008 and<\/p>\n
the date of provisional registration given by the Medical Council<\/p>\n
was on      15.01.2008, thus enabling the students to have<\/p>\n
commenced their       Internship on 18.01.2008 and in turn<\/p>\n
completed the Internship on 17.01.2009. In the case of the<\/p>\n
other Medical College ( viz., Athurasramam N.S.S.Medical<\/p>\n
College, Kottayam), the position reflected from Ext.P12 is that<\/p>\n
the 4th year B.H.M.S.Course was completed on 13.07.2007; the<\/p>\n
date of publication of the final year result was on 08.01.2008;<\/p>\n
the date of commencement of Internship was on 19.01.2008,<\/p>\n
which was over on 18.01.2009<\/p>\n
     4.   As per the relevant rules\/norms fixed by the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent\/the Principal who issued Ext.P1 prospectus, the<\/p>\n
students who are undergoing Internship are       also eligible to<\/p>\n
attend the written test\/selection process.      Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioners had also submitted their applications for admission to<\/p>\n
the Post Graduate Degree course in M.D. (Homoeo). But there<\/p>\n
is a stipulation in Ext. P1 prospectus issued on 07.11.2008 that<\/p>\n
only such students who completed their Internship on or before<\/p>\n
31.10.2008 alone would be eligible for admission subject to the<\/p>\n
condition that they should        produce the    Medical  Council<\/p>\n
Registration Certificate at the time of admission.    By virtue of<\/p>\n
above stipulation, the petitioners were never permitted to take<\/p>\n
part in the written test, which made them to approach this court<\/p>\n
by filing the above Writ Petitions contending that the said<\/p>\n
stipulation fixing the last date for completing the internship as<\/p>\n
31.10.2008 does not have any sanctity or nexus with any of the<\/p>\n
objectives to be achieved in selection.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Referring to the various documents produced and the<\/p>\n
tabulation given in the Writ Petitions with regard to the different<\/p>\n
courses and prescription of the last date for       completion of<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
Internship, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that<\/p>\n
in almost all the cases, the date of completion of Internship is<\/p>\n
specified to be a date much after the date of written test and<\/p>\n
more closer to the date of the centralised admission procedure,<\/p>\n
( the interview). Unlike this, in the instant case, the last date<\/p>\n
for completion of Internship is stated as 31.10.2008, that too in<\/p>\n
the   prospectus    published much after the said date, ie. on<\/p>\n
07.11.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioners asserts that<\/p>\n
the proceedings pursued by the 4th respondent are quite arbitrary<\/p>\n
and unsustainable, intending to extend undue favours to the<\/p>\n
students of the    Kerala University,   in so far as the present<\/p>\n
Controller of Examinations happened to be the Principal of the<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram      Homoeopathic     Medical   College. It is<\/p>\n
contended that no discrimination is possible, since the students<\/p>\n
of the Kerala University also belonged to the same batch as in<\/p>\n
the case of the petitioners and who had secured admission to the<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
Degree Course (B.H.M.S) by virtue of the Common Entrance Test<\/p>\n
conducted      in the year 2002, though they completed the<\/p>\n
Internship on 27.10.2008.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The above Writ Petitions were admitted by this court on<\/p>\n
15.12.2008 and an interim order was granted permitting the<\/p>\n
petitioners to participate in the    entrance examination for the<\/p>\n
Post Graduate Course for the year 2008-09, which was scheduled<\/p>\n
to be held on 10.01.2009, notwithstanding the stipulation that<\/p>\n
they had to complete the Internship on or before 31.10.2008.<\/p>\n
Based on the said interim order, the petitioners took part in the<\/p>\n
examination and only the petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 6 in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
36528 of 2008 and the petitioners 6, 7, 10, 12 and 14 in the<\/p>\n
other Writ Petition could come out successful. Such successful<\/p>\n
candidates filed an Interlocutory Application before this court<\/p>\n
for permitting them to       participate in the further process of<\/p>\n
selection, i.e., in the Centralised Admission Procedure to be held<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
in the due course. When the matter came up for consideration<\/p>\n
before this court, considering the request of the respondents for<\/p>\n
further time to file counter affidavit, a further  period of two<\/p>\n
weeks was granted as per the interim order dated 20.02.2009,<\/p>\n
simultaneously staying the allotment and admission to the Post<\/p>\n
Graduate Course of M.D. (Homoeo) for a period of two weeks,<\/p>\n
which was subsequently extended by ten days as per the order<\/p>\n
dated 03.03.2009.\n<\/p>\n
     7.   The    4th respondent\/controlling officer  has filed a<\/p>\n
counter affidavit sustaining the stand in fixing the cut off date<\/p>\n
for completing the Internship as 31.10.2008.     A reply affidavit<\/p>\n
along with some additional document (Ext.P18) has been filed by<\/p>\n
the petitioners rebutting the averments in the counter affidavit.<\/p>\n
The case projected by the 4th respondent in the counter affidavit<\/p>\n
is that fixation of the cut off date as 31.10.2008 was never to<\/p>\n
extend any undue favours to the students of the Kerala<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
University, as alleged by the petitioners but that 31st of October<\/p>\n
was being fixed as the cut off date, right from the year 2006 to<\/p>\n
ensure that all the Universities in the State of Kerala conducted<\/p>\n
the examinations on time and thus in the larger interest of the<\/p>\n
student community as a whole so as to make them eligible to<\/p>\n
pursue their further career. It is asserted in paragraph No.3 of<\/p>\n
the counter affidavit that inclusion of the above criterion was to<\/p>\n
make     admissions to the Post Graduate courses in a more<\/p>\n
prompt, systamatic and regularised manner in the subsequent<\/p>\n
years and that similar cut off dates have been prescribed with<\/p>\n
respect to other Post Graduate Courses as well.       The counter<\/p>\n
affidavit is obviously silent as to the    practice and procedure<\/p>\n
which was followed till 2006 and no special sanctity is offered<\/p>\n
with regard to fixation of the cut off date as “31st of October”<\/p>\n
from the year 2006.\n<\/p>\n
     8. It is stated in paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
that the entrance examinations for M.D. Course (Homoeo) in<\/p>\n
2006 and 2007 were conducted on 11.11.2006 and 22.12.2007<\/p>\n
respectively and that the students from all the Universities in<\/p>\n
Kerala had written the entrance examination and no complaints<\/p>\n
had arisen regarding the cut off date at that time. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioners contends that the fourth respondent<\/p>\n
has taken a somersault in the very next sentence where it has<\/p>\n
been   conceded that    in the year 2006, the students of the<\/p>\n
Calicut University   who became qualified on 28.12.2006 were<\/p>\n
unable to write the P.G. Entrance Examination and that in the<\/p>\n
year 2007 those who became qualified on 26.12.2007 also could<\/p>\n
not write the same. This shows that there is absolutely no<\/p>\n
consistency in the case put forth by the 4th respondent, submits<\/p>\n
the learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
     9. Learned Senior Government Pleader submits that there<\/p>\n
is no contradiction or inconsistency  with regard to the stand<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
taken by the respondents and            what was intended was<\/p>\n
participation  of   the   eligible  students who     satisfied the<\/p>\n
requirement of Internship prior to the cut off date . But then the<\/p>\n
question becomes relevant as to the position\/rule which was<\/p>\n
actually in existence just prior to 2006, which is left unanswered<\/p>\n
and obscure, making the concerned students ineligible to appear<\/p>\n
for the P.G. Entrance Examination when the cut off date was<\/p>\n
admittedly brought in stipulating the same as 31st October from<\/p>\n
the year 2006 onwards. As stated already, the only explanation<\/p>\n
offered by the 4th respondent for fixing the cut off date as 31st<\/p>\n
October, (as stated again in paragraph Nos.8 and 10 of the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit), is that it was to compel the Universities to<\/p>\n
adhere to the time schedule in conducting the examinations and<\/p>\n
to protect the larger interest of the students appearing for the<\/p>\n
P.G. Entrance Examination in Homoeopathy.<\/p>\n
     10.    Obviously, the dispute in these    cases is not with<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
regard to the power of the concerned respondents to prescribe<\/p>\n
cut off date for completion of Internship, but     is rather with<\/p>\n
regard to the reckoning of the cut off date as ‘31.10.2008’;<\/p>\n
when the 4th respondent who issued the prospectus on<\/p>\n
07.11.2008 showing the cut off date as 31.10.2008 was well<\/p>\n
aware that all the students of 2002-08 batch had secured<\/p>\n
admission in the different Medical Colleges in Kerala on the basis<\/p>\n
of the Common Entrance Test        and    on the basis of their<\/p>\n
merit\/option. There is absolutely no case for the concerned<\/p>\n
respondent that there was any fault or lapse on the part of the<\/p>\n
students   in   completing   the  course\/examination\/Internship.<\/p>\n
Equally or more so is the position, when no specific case or<\/p>\n
instance is pointed out as to any delay on the part of any of the<\/p>\n
concerned College or University in conducting the examinations<\/p>\n
or Internship on time.    When the 4th respondent asserts that<\/p>\n
prescription of the cut off date as 31.10.2008 was with the<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
specific intention to persuade or compel the Universities to<\/p>\n
complete the course and examinations, followed by internship on<\/p>\n
time, absolutely no answer has been given to the question as to<\/p>\n
whether there was       any failure on the part of any of the<\/p>\n
Universities in this regard. In any view of the matter, as stated<\/p>\n
above, no fault or lapse on the part of the petitioners\/students is<\/p>\n
pointed out by the 4th respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      11. It is not known, how any blame can be put on the<\/p>\n
shoulders of the petitioner, so as to keep them away from the<\/p>\n
field of selection with regard to the admission for P.G. Course<\/p>\n
(M.D.-Homoeo);       simultaneously   confining    the   zone   of<\/p>\n
consideration to a very small group of students who belong to<\/p>\n
the Kerala University and     who were fortunate to have their<\/p>\n
Internship completed on 27.10.2008, i.e., just four days prior to<\/p>\n
the cut off date fixed by the fourth respondent . In other words,<\/p>\n
the students, who have completed their course in different<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 14<\/span><\/p>\n
colleges under the different Universities in Kerala; despite the<\/p>\n
fact   that   they   were    selected  and   allotted  to   such<\/p>\n
Institutions\/Universities on the basis of the Common Entrance<\/p>\n
Test     and     selection    procedure    pursued    by     the<\/p>\n
Government\/Departmental authorities, ( who, hence are liable to<\/p>\n
be treated on an equal platform), have quite unfortunately been<\/p>\n
classified in  an unreasonable      manner, though may not be<\/p>\n
wilful, which has resulted in very adverse consequences in so far<\/p>\n
as the rights and interests of the affected         persons are<\/p>\n
concerned.\n<\/p>\n
      12.    The additional respondents 6 to 10 in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.365289 of 2008 and 5 to 9 in the other Writ Petition who got<\/p>\n
impleaded themselves contend that they (belonging to the<\/p>\n
Kerala University) having       completed the Internship      on<\/p>\n
27.10.2008, alone are eligible to be considered for selection to<\/p>\n
the P.G. Course in view of the specific mandate in Ext.P1<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 15<\/span><\/p>\n
prospectus.   The said additional respondents     further contend<\/p>\n
that the claim of the     petitioners herein is not   liable to be<\/p>\n
entertained, particularly since the stipulation contained in Ext.P1<\/p>\n
prospectus cannot be varied or modified in any manner.         The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that impleadment of<\/p>\n
the above respondents was objected right at the beginning and<\/p>\n
even otherwise, they cannot be heard to say that they have got<\/p>\n
any vested right to have the zone of consideration confined to<\/p>\n
themselves, excluding all others; especially when no candidate is<\/p>\n
having any vested right to get admission on the basis of the<\/p>\n
prospectus, as made clear by this court in the decision in Relly<\/p>\n
Susan     Mathew      vs.    The    Controller     of   Entrance<\/p>\n
Examinations and others<\/a> [1997(2) ILR (Kerala) 489]<\/p>\n
(paragraph 15).\n<\/p>\n
      13.  It is relevant to note that some of the petitioners<\/p>\n
anticipating the adverse circumstances, had filed Ext.P8 and P8<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                16<\/span><\/p>\n
(a) representations dated 20.08.2008 before the 4th respondent<\/p>\n
i.e., even much prior to coming into existence of Ext. P1<\/p>\n
prospectus itself, seeking to make proper remedial measures:<\/p>\n
lest their rights and interests should be affected in an adverse<\/p>\n
manner, when compared with the similar rights of other students<\/p>\n
who secured admission to the 2002-08 batch B.H.M.S., on the<\/p>\n
basis of the Common Entrance Test and who were allotted to<\/p>\n
different Institutions under different Universities.    Nothing has<\/p>\n
been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent as<\/p>\n
to the manner in which Exts.P8 and P8(a) representations were<\/p>\n
dealt with and     at any rate, it cannot be said that the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent    was not aware of the adverse consequences that<\/p>\n
would be resulted. Quite strangely, the 4th respondent chose to<\/p>\n
publish Ext.P1 prospectus on 07.11.2008 stipulating a cut off<\/p>\n
date as ‘31.10.2008’.     Again some other petitioners\/students<\/p>\n
filed Ext. P9 representation before the Government seeking to<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                17<\/span><\/p>\n
intervene on war footing in view of apprehended adverse<\/p>\n
consequences to be followed.      Clauses 25 and 26 of Ext.P1<\/p>\n
prospectus which are relevant as to the power of the Government<\/p>\n
to intervene, are extracted below :\n<\/p>\n
Clause 25:\n<\/p>\n
           “Notwithstanding anything contained in the<\/p>\n
           prospectus the Government may at any time,<\/p>\n
           on their own volition or otherwise after calling<\/p>\n
           for the records of the case, revise any orders<\/p>\n
           passed by a subordinate authority.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Clause 26:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           \"The      prospectus      is    subject       to\n\n           modification\/addition\/deletion  as   may      be\n\n           deemed necessary by the Government.\"\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      14.    From the above, it is explicitly clear that the<\/p>\n
Government had at        no point of time on their volition or<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                               18<\/span><\/p>\n
otherwise, after calling for the records, had revised any orders<\/p>\n
passed by a subordinate authority and further that           the<\/p>\n
prospectus    was subjected to modification\/addition\/deletion as<\/p>\n
might be deemed necessary by the Government.         The callous<\/p>\n
inaction on the part of the Government\/Departmental authorities<\/p>\n
even to consider the matter despite the adverse circumstances<\/p>\n
pointed out vide Ext.P8, 8(a) and P9 representations cannot but<\/p>\n
be   deprecated.    This is more so, when the third respondent<\/p>\n
pursuant to the representations preferred by some of the<\/p>\n
petitioners had instructed vide Ext. P10 reply dated 29.11.2008<\/p>\n
that they had to approach the 4th respondent -the Principal and<\/p>\n
Controlling   Officer,  Govt.  Homoeopathic    Medical  College,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram or the Government for redressal of their<\/p>\n
grievances.    The fact remains that the grievance projected by<\/p>\n
the petitioners, as above, before the 4th respondent and the<\/p>\n
Government was unfortunately left to have had a natural death.<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                  19<\/span><\/p>\n
     15. It is pertinent to note from Ext. P15 (which is the full<\/p>\n
text of Ext.P1 prospectus) that only a total number of ’15’ seats<\/p>\n
are available for the M.D. (Homoeo) under General Merit, which<\/p>\n
are to be filled up from the ‘most eligible       candidates’, who<\/p>\n
participated in the process of selection . As pointed out already,<\/p>\n
there is absolutely no rhyme or reason in eliminating a group of<\/p>\n
students like the petitioners herein who belong to the common<\/p>\n
pool who secured admission to the B.H.M.S. Course (2002-2008<\/p>\n
batch) on the basis of the Common Entrance Test as in the case<\/p>\n
of the additional respondents herein and there is no rationale in<\/p>\n
denying their chances to compete in the admission test for the<\/p>\n
P.G.course [M.D. (Homoeo) ] for the year 2008-09 when no lapse<\/p>\n
or fault is attributable to them. As it stands so, the more crucial<\/p>\n
questions to be considered are:\n<\/p>\n
            (i) whether there is any justification in fixing<\/p>\n
            the cut off date as 31.10.2008 for completion<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 20<\/span><\/p>\n
           of Internship in the instant case;\n<\/p>\n
           (ii) whether any substantial loss will be caused<\/p>\n
           to the      Government or the departmental<\/p>\n
           authorities, if the grievance of the petitioners is<\/p>\n
           redressed and<\/p>\n
           (iii) whether any prejudice will be caused to any<\/p>\n
           other       candidate\/student         or       the<\/p>\n
           Government\/department if the claim of the<\/p>\n
           petitioners is considered and they are allowed<\/p>\n
           to take part in the process of selection.\n<\/p>\n
     16.   The above vital aspects are seen unanswered in the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent and no explanation<\/p>\n
is offered by the learned Senior Government Pleader in this<\/p>\n
regard, particularly when no reason is stated for not invoking the<\/p>\n
power of the Government as provided under clause 25 and 26 of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 Prospectus which was admittedly issued on 07.11.2008,<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                               21<\/span><\/p>\n
i.e., after the cut off date notified.  It is quite evident from<\/p>\n
Ext.P18 (with regard to the Calicut University) produced by the<\/p>\n
petitioners    (after obtaining a copy from the concerned<\/p>\n
authorities invoking the power under the Right to Information<\/p>\n
Act, 2005), that all examinations were conducted by the<\/p>\n
Universities on time and that there was absolutely no fault or<\/p>\n
lapse on the part of the students in getting the conduct of<\/p>\n
examinations delayed in any manner . Similarly Ext.P19 issued<\/p>\n
in respect of Dr. Padiar Memorial Homoeopathic Medical College<\/p>\n
under the M.G. University also shows that the first, second, third<\/p>\n
and fourth year B.H.M.S. Examinations of 2002-08 batch were<\/p>\n
conducted according to the schedule of the University and that<\/p>\n
they had not been adjourned or postponed for any reason<\/p>\n
whatsoever.    This being the position, the petitioners have got<\/p>\n
every right to compete in the selection process for admission to<\/p>\n
the Post Graduate Course [M.D. (Homoeo)] notified by the fourth<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                22<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent under Ext.P1 Prospectus and also under Ext. P2<\/p>\n
issued by the third respondent, notwithstanding the cut off date<\/p>\n
for completion of Internship as 31.10.2008.      This is more so,<\/p>\n
when    the   purpose   of  completion     of  Internship  before<\/p>\n
commencement of the Centralised Admission Procedure is taken<\/p>\n
care of by Clause 4 of Ext.P1 prospectus itself.<\/p>\n
      17.   It is worthwhile to go through the chronology of<\/p>\n
events\/hurdles    which are to be crossed by persons like the<\/p>\n
petitioners in connection with the admission in question. After<\/p>\n
completing the final year examination and on coming out<\/p>\n
successful, the students have to obtain provisional certificate<\/p>\n
from the University. Thereafter, they have to obtain provisional<\/p>\n
registration from the Travancore-Cochin Council of Homoeopathic<\/p>\n
Medicines , which is a pre-requisite for enabling them to undergo<\/p>\n
Internship conducted in the concerned college. After completion<\/p>\n
of Internship, the students have to approach the Travancore-<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 23<\/span><\/p>\n
Cochin Council of Homoeopathic Medicines again, from where<\/p>\n
permanent registration like Ext.P14 series in W.P.(C) No. 36528<\/p>\n
of 2008 and Ext. P15 in W.P.(C) 36529 of 2008 are to be<\/p>\n
obtained. it is the said certificate that is to be produced at the<\/p>\n
time of admission, as contemplated in Clause 4(a) of Ext.P1<\/p>\n
Prospectus. Since the final registration certificate was given by<\/p>\n
the Council only after completing the Internship as stated above,<\/p>\n
which in turn has been produced at the time of examination as<\/p>\n
stipulated in Clause 4(a) of the Prospectus, stipulation of the cut<\/p>\n
off date for completion of Internship as 31.10.2008 cannot be<\/p>\n
said to have any significance, particularly when such stipulation<\/p>\n
is stated as for compelling the Universities to conduct the<\/p>\n
examinations without any delay\/ on time.<\/p>\n
      18.   In the above    facts and circumstances, this Court<\/p>\n
hereby declares that the respondents are bound to finalise the<\/p>\n
process of selection to the Post Graduate Course [M.D.(Homoeo)]<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 36528 OF 2008
\n&
\nW.P.(C)No. 36529 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 24<\/span><\/p>\n
considering the petitioners as well, who have             come out<\/p>\n
successful in the written test held on 10.01.2009 pursuant to the<\/p>\n
interim order passed by this court, notwithstanding the cut off<\/p>\n
date for completing the Internship mentioned as ‘31.10.2008’<\/p>\n
and the rank list shall be published accordingly, based on the<\/p>\n
relative merits of      all such candidates concerned and the<\/p>\n
admission shall be completed on the basis of their ranks as<\/p>\n
aforesaid, accommodating the best eligible candidates on the<\/p>\n
basis of their merit, of course, subject to the rules of reservation<\/p>\n
to the extent as applicable.\n<\/p>\n
      Both the Writ Petitions are allowed as above. No cost.<\/p>\n
                                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
\n                                           JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\nlk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Arunkrishnan.T.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 11 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 36528 of 2008(W) 1. ARUNKRISHNAN.T.P, AGED,24 YEARS, … Petitioner 2. DEEPESH.D.M, AGED, 24 YEARS, 3. REENA.V, AGED 24 YEARS,W\/O.DR.JERALD 4. ANISHA.K.S, AGED, 24 YEARS, 5. SRUTHI.V.M, AGED 23 YEARS, 6. RUMSHEED.N, […]<\/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-83998","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nArunkrishnan.T.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 11 March, 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\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arunkrishnan.T.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-29T09:18:23+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arunkrishnan.T.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 11 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-29T09:18:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":3814,\"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\\\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Arunkrishnan.T.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-29T09:18:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arunkrishnan.T.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 11 March, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Arunkrishnan.T.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 11 March, 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\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arunkrishnan.T.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-29T09:18:23+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arunkrishnan.T.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 11 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-29T09:18:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2"},"wordCount":3814,"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\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2","name":"Arunkrishnan.T.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-29T09:18:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunkrishnan-t-p-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-11-march-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arunkrishnan.T.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 11 March, 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:\/\/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\/83998","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=83998"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83998\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83998"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83998"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}