{"id":85663,"date":"2006-08-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006"},"modified":"2019-03-05T18:35:53","modified_gmt":"2019-03-05T13:05:53","slug":"ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Ms.J. Sreekala vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ms.J. Sreekala vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 18777 of 2006(I)\n\n\n1. MS.J. SREEKALA, STAFF NURSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN\n\n Dated :18\/08\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                            K.K. DENESAN, J.\n\n\n\n                   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n                     W.P.(C) No.18777 OF 2006 I\n\n                   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n\n\n                  Dated this the 18th August, 2006\n\n\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      What is the effect of Rule 5 of Appendix XIIA referred<\/p>\n
to   in   Exception   2   to   Rule   88   and   Rule   110B   of   Part   I,<\/p>\n
Kerala   Service   Rules   (for   short,   KSR)   on   seniority<\/p>\n
determined   as   per   Rule   27(c)   of   Part   II   of   Kerala   State   &<\/p>\n
Subordinate   Service   Rules   (for   short,   KS&SSR)?     Is   not<\/p>\n
seniority   earned   as   provided   in   K.S.   &   S.S.R.   a   service<\/p>\n
benefit?   These questions have come up for consideration at<\/p>\n
the   instance   of   a   government   employee   who   is   subjected   to<\/p>\n
the   rigour     of   Rule   5   of   Appendix   XII   A   of   KSR,   which<\/p>\n
directs   that   the   service   benefits   that   had   accrued   to   a<\/p>\n
probationer   prior   to   his   proceeding   on   leave   without<\/p>\n
allowances for taking up employment abroad or within India,<\/p>\n
shall stand forfeited.\n<\/p>\n
      2. Facts ,in brief, may be stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
      The petitioner was advised by the State Public Service<\/p>\n
Commission   as   per   letter   dated   19-4-1989   for   the   post   of<\/p>\n
Staff   Nurse   in   the   Health   Services   Department.     She   was<\/p>\n
appointed   as   such   by   the   District   Medical   Officer   of<\/p>\n
Health, Thiruvananthapuram vide order dated 10-5-1989.   She<\/p>\n
joined     duty     on     18-5-1989     F.N.       By   Govt.   order   dated<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18777\/06                     -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
23-10-1990   she   was   sanctioned   leave   without   allowances   for<\/p>\n
5   years   for   the   purpose   of   taking   up   employment   abroad<\/p>\n
under   the   terms   and   conditions   stipulated   in   Appendix   XII<\/p>\n
A, Part I, K.S.R.  Her request for extension of leave under<\/p>\n
the   same   terms   and   conditions   was   allowed   for   another   5<\/p>\n
years   from   20-11-1995   as   per   Govt.   Order   dated   16-1-1996<\/p>\n
and  a   further   extension   for   5   years   from   20-11-2000   as   per<\/p>\n
Govt.   Order   dated   8-2-2001.     She   sought   for   permission   to<\/p>\n
rejoin   duty   on   30-4-2002   after   cancelling   the   unavailed<\/p>\n
portion of leave.   The permission sought for was granted as<\/p>\n
per   order     dated   30-5-2002     and     she     rejoined     duty     on<\/p>\n
18-6-2002.   The   period   of   probation   for   staff   nurses   is   a<\/p>\n
total  period   of   2   years   on   duty   within   a   continuous   period<\/p>\n
of   3   years.     The   petitioner   could   not   complete   the   period<\/p>\n
of   probation   prior   to   her   proceeding   on   leave.     Hence,<\/p>\n
after rejoining duty   also,   she   was   on   probation   from<\/p>\n
18-6-2002   to   17-6-2004.     She   became   approved   probationer<\/p>\n
with effect from 18-6-2004.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   In   the   seniority   list   of   Staff   Nurses   as   on   July,<\/p>\n
1990,   the   petitioner’s   name   does   not   find   a   place   though<\/p>\n
she had first commenced service  as Staff Nurse with effect<\/p>\n
from     18-5-1989   on   the   advice   of   the   State   Public   Service<\/p>\n
Commission.   The petitioner filed representation requesting<\/p>\n
to   include   her   name   in   the   seniority   list   taking   into<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18777\/06                      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
consideration the date of her first effective advice by the<\/p>\n
P.S.C., namely, 19-4-1989.   Her request was rejected as per<\/p>\n
Ext.   P9   letter   dated   25-3-2006   of   the   2nd          respondent<\/p>\n
informing   her   that   those   who   had   availed   leave   without<\/p>\n
allowances   for   employment   abroad   before   successfully<\/p>\n
completing   the   period   of   probation   would   be   treated   as<\/p>\n
fresh  entrants   in   service   on   the   date   of   rejoining   duty   on<\/p>\n
return   from   leave   and   as   such   she   could   legitimately   claim<\/p>\n
seniority only with effect from 18-6-2002.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   The   petitioner   has   sought   for   a   writ   of   certiorari<\/p>\n
to   quash   Ext.   P9   and   for   a   writ   of   mandamus   directing   the<\/p>\n
respondents   to   assign   her   rank   in   the   seniority   list   of<\/p>\n
staff   nurses   with   reference   to   19-4-989,   the   date   of   first<\/p>\n
effective   advice   by   P.S.C.   for   appointment   to   the   post   of<\/p>\n
Staff Nurse.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   The   petitioner’s   case   is   that   she   is   not   liable   to<\/p>\n
forfeit the seniority earned by virtue of her selection and<\/p>\n
advice   by   P.S.C.   for   appointment   to   the   post   of   Staff<\/p>\n
Nurse,   for,   seniority   has   to   be   reckoned   with   reference   to<\/p>\n
the date of advice in terms of Rule 27(c) of Part II, K.S.\n<\/p>\n
&   S.S.R.   and   that   the   words   service   benefits   in   Rule   5   of<\/p>\n
Appendix   XIIA   of   K.S.R.   do   not   take   within   its   fold<\/p>\n
seniority.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   I   have   heard   Shri.   Devan   Ramachandran,   learned<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18777\/06                                -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
counsel   for   the   petitioner   and   Shri.   Manoj   Kumar,   learned<\/p>\n
Senior Govt. Pleader for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
        7. Rule 88, Part I, K.S.R. governs the grant of leave<\/p>\n
without  allowances.     Rule   110B   of   Part   I,   K.S.R.   says   that<\/p>\n
rules   for   the   grant   of   leave   without   allowances   for   taking<\/p>\n
up   employment   abroad   or   within   India   are   given   in   Appendix<\/p>\n
XIIA.        Rule   4   of   Appendix   XIIA   deals   with   permanent<\/p>\n
officers   and   non-permanent   officers   who   have   completed<\/p>\n
probation   in   their   entry   grade   and   avail   leave   without<\/p>\n
allowances.     Rule   5   of   Appendix   XIIA   speaks   about   non-\n<\/p>\n
permanent   officers   in   regular   service   who   avail   leave<\/p>\n
without allowances before completing probation in the entry<\/p>\n
cadre.   For the purpose of this case the relevant provision<\/p>\n
is Rule 5.  The same reads:\n<\/p>\n
                 “In   the   case   of   non-permanent   Officers   in<\/p>\n
      regular service who have not completed probation<\/p>\n
      in the entry grade, leave without allowances may<\/p>\n
      be   granted   subject   to   the   condition   that   they<\/p>\n
      will   have   to   start   afresh   and   complete   their<\/p>\n
      probation   on   return   from   the   leave   without<\/p>\n
      allowances.     In   other   words,   the   Officers   will<\/p>\n
      forfeit the service benefits that had accrued to<\/p>\n
      them prior to their proceeding on leave and they<\/p>\n
      will   be   deemed   as   new   entrants   to   Government<\/p>\n
      service on return from leave.   What is protected<\/p>\n
      is only their right to rejoin Government service<\/p>\n
      in   the   same   entry   grade   as   if   they   were   new<\/p>\n
      entrants.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Officers          who         avail         leave         without         allowances         after<\/p>\n
completing   probation   come   within   the   purview   of   Rule   4.\n<\/p>\n
They     will   loose   benefits   like   leave,   pension,   gratuity,<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18777\/06                     -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
increment,   etc.   as   also     promotion   chances   as   may   arise<\/p>\n
with   reference   to   their   seniority   in   the   post   from   which<\/p>\n
they   proceeded   on   leave.     They   shall   also   loose   seniority<\/p>\n
in   the   higher   grade   with   reference   to   their   juniors   who<\/p>\n
might   get   promoted   to   such   grades   before   they   rejoin   duty.\n<\/p>\n
When compared to Rule 4, the adverse consequences of Rule 5<\/p>\n
are graver.   Officers who come within the purview of  Rule<\/p>\n
5   will   have   to   undergo   the   full   period   of     probation   on<\/p>\n
return   from   leave.    All   service   benefits  that   had   accrued<\/p>\n
to   them   prior   to   their   proceeding   on   leave   will   stand<\/p>\n
forfeited.     They   will   loose   the   rights   and   benefits   earned<\/p>\n
till   the   date   of   proceeding   on   leave,   except   the   right   to<\/p>\n
rejoin  service in the same  grade as new entrants.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   According   to   the   counsel   for   the   petitioners,<\/p>\n
seniority   is   not   a   service   benefit   because   only   those<\/p>\n
benefits   accrued   out   of   service   rendered   to   the   Government<\/p>\n
will   come   within   the   ambit   of   the   expression   ‘service<\/p>\n
benefits.’     It   is   also   contended   that   the   impact   of   the<\/p>\n
words   ‘fresh   entrant’   will   have   application   only   on<\/p>\n
benefits   and   rights   like   leave,   pension,   pay,   increments<\/p>\n
etc.   regulated   by     Kerala   Service   Rules   and   cannot   touch<\/p>\n
the   seniority   of   a   government   servant   determined   in   terms<\/p>\n
of Rule 27(c) of K.S. & S.S.R.\n<\/p>\n
      9.     I     am   unable   to   agree   with   the   above   contention.\n<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18777\/06                     -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
Seniority is an incidence of service as also a condition of<\/p>\n
service.         Seniority   as   understood            in        service<\/p>\n
jurisprudence   draws   its   life   from   an   appointment   to   a<\/p>\n
service   and   grows   along   with   the   service.     It   has   no<\/p>\n
existence   de   hors   service.     Ordinarily,   the   right   to   earn<\/p>\n
seniority commences with the commencement of the service of<\/p>\n
the incumbent   and that right runs along with the service.\n<\/p>\n
True,        there   are        exceptions   to   the   above   general<\/p>\n
principle.     As   far   as     the   State   Government   employees   are<\/p>\n
concerned,   Rule  27  of  K.S.  &  S.S.R.  governs  the  situation.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 27(c) of K.S. & S.S.R. provides that the seniority of<\/p>\n
a   person   appointed   to   a   service,   class,   category   or   grade<\/p>\n
on   the   advice   of   the   Public   Service   Commission   commences<\/p>\n
from the date of such advice.  Since advice for appointment<\/p>\n
precedes   the   date   of   appointment,   it   may   appear   at   first<\/p>\n
blush   that   there   is   scope   for   contending     that   those<\/p>\n
covered   by  Rule  27(c)  can  claim  seniority  de  hors  service.\n<\/p>\n
In fact, the petitioner has advanced such a contention.  In<\/p>\n
my opinion, it is  a feeble ground which on closer scrutiny<\/p>\n
will not hold water.   The first proviso to Rule 27(c) says<\/p>\n
that   the   seniority   of   candidates   who   have   been   granted<\/p>\n
extension of time to join duty beyond three months from the<\/p>\n
date   of   the   appointment   order,   except   those   who   are<\/p>\n
undergoing   courses   of   study   or   training   which   are<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18777\/06                     -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
prescribed as essential qualification for the post to which<\/p>\n
they   are   advised   for   appointment,   shall   be   determined   by<\/p>\n
the   date   of   their   joining   duty.     It   is   therefore   evident<\/p>\n
that   the   date   of   effective   advice   looses   its   relevance   in<\/p>\n
the   matter   of   determination   of   seniority   in   cases   where<\/p>\n
the   advised   candidates   do   not   join   duty   within   the<\/p>\n
stipulated   time   limit.     This   is   one   of   the   instances   that<\/p>\n
demonstrates the link between service and seniority despite<\/p>\n
the fact that under Rule 27(c) the right to count seniority<\/p>\n
commences   from   the   date   of   advice   by   P.S.C.       We   cannot<\/p>\n
think   of   a   person   claiming   seniority   in   a   service   or<\/p>\n
category or grade or post until   he joins duty and becomes<\/p>\n
a   member   of   the   service.     When   regulated   by   statutory<\/p>\n
provisions   or   orders   having   the   force   of   law   seniority<\/p>\n
becomes a right that could be earned by those in service in<\/p>\n
terms   of   the   conditions   of   their   service   as   enjoined   by<\/p>\n
law.   The moment the employee ceases to be in service, his<\/p>\n
right to earn   seniority comes to an end.   Rule 27 of K.S.\n<\/p>\n
&   S.S.R.   is   a   regulatory   provision   prescribing   the   method<\/p>\n
to   determine   the   seniority.     Though   the   substantive   right<\/p>\n
to   seniority   exists   de   hors   Rule   27       which   only   provides<\/p>\n
the   method   to   determine   or   compute   the   seniority,   it   is<\/p>\n
open   to  the  competent  authority  to  lay  down  the  principles<\/p>\n
governing   the   determination   of   seniority   and   in   that<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18777\/06                       -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
process   to   specify   kinds   of   service   that   shall   be   counted<\/p>\n
or   discounted   for   seniority.       The   right   to   seniority<\/p>\n
determined in terms of Rule 27 of   K.S. & S.S.R. manifests<\/p>\n
into a concrete or tangible form capable of enjoyment as a<\/p>\n
service benefit upon the preparation of the seniority list.\n<\/p>\n
Once   that   is   done,   it   becomes   the   foundation   for   the<\/p>\n
enjoyment   of   other   rights   like   promotion.       Hence,   it   is<\/p>\n
difficult   to   appreciate   the   contention   that   seniority   is<\/p>\n
not   a   service   benefit.     I   hold   that   the   words   ‘service<\/p>\n
benefits’   in   Rule   5   of   Appendix   XII   A,   K.S.R.   take   within<\/p>\n
its fold seniority as well.\n<\/p>\n
      10.   Now,   let   us   go   to   the   next   point.     It   is   not   in<\/p>\n
dispute   that   the   petitioner’s   case   comes   within   the<\/p>\n
mischief of Rule 5 of Appendix XIIA.   Therefore, except the<\/p>\n
right   to   rejoin   duty   as   a   new   entrant,   she   has   lost   all<\/p>\n
other   rights   and   service   benefits.                 The   effect   of<\/p>\n
forfeiture   is   so   pervasive   that   there   is   no   scope   for<\/p>\n
retaining   any   right   or   service   benefit   except   the   one<\/p>\n
specifically   protected   by   the   above   rule,   namely,   re-entry<\/p>\n
into   service.     The   intention   of   the   rule   maker   is   evident<\/p>\n
from   the   use   of   the   words   ‘will   have   to   start   afresh’,<\/p>\n
‘will   forfeit   the   service   benefits   that   had   accrued   to<\/p>\n
them’   and   ‘will   be   deemed   as   new   entrants   to   Government<\/p>\n
service.’  Rule 5 does not admit any room for doubt when it<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18777\/06                      -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
is   made   clear   that   what   is   protected   is   only   the   right   of<\/p>\n
the   officers   to   rejoin   government   service   in   the   same<\/p>\n
cadre as if they are new entrants.\n<\/p>\n
      11.   It   is   true   that   as   far   as   the   State   government<\/p>\n
employees   are   concerned,   seniority   of   a   person   in   a<\/p>\n
service, class, category or grade is determined as provided<\/p>\n
in Rule 27 of K.S. & S.S.R.   Except in the case of persons<\/p>\n
appointed   on   the   advice   of   the   P.S.C.,   seniority   is<\/p>\n
determined   by   the   date   of   the   order   of   his   first<\/p>\n
appointment   to   such   service,   class,   category   or   grade   as<\/p>\n
provided   in   clause   (a)   of   Rule   27   of   K.S.   &   S.S.R.     The<\/p>\n
seniority   of   a   person   appointed   on   the   advice   of   the<\/p>\n
Commission   is   determined   by   the   date   of   his   effective<\/p>\n
advice   made   for   his   appointment   to   the   class,   category   or<\/p>\n
grade   to   which   he   is   appointed   vide   clause   (c)   of   Rule   27<\/p>\n
of  K.S. & S.S.R. which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
              “(c)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in<\/p>\n
      clauses   (a)   and   (b)   above,   the   seniority   of   a<\/p>\n
      person appointed to a class, category or grade in<\/p>\n
      a service on the advice of the Commission shall,<\/p>\n
      unless   he   has   been   reduced   to   a   lower   rank   as<\/p>\n
      punishment,   be   determined   by   the   date   of   first<\/p>\n
      effective advice made for his appointment to such<\/p>\n
      class,   category   or   grade   and   when   two   or   more<\/p>\n
      persons   are   included   in   the   same   list   of<\/p>\n
      candidates   advised,   their   relative   seniority<\/p>\n
      shall   be   fixed   according   to   the   order   in   which<\/p>\n
      their names are arranged in the advice list.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (Provisos omitted).<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18777\/06                      -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
      12.   The   contention   that   seniority   determined   in   terms<\/p>\n
of   Rule   27(c)   of   K.S.   &   S.S.R.   shall   stand   unaffected<\/p>\n
despite   statutory   provisions   intended   and   designed   to   make<\/p>\n
inroads   into   the   right   to   seniority   earned   by   a   member   of<\/p>\n
the   service,   cannot   be   accepted   as   a   sound   proposition.\n<\/p>\n
The   non-obstante   clause   with   which   Rule   27(c)   opens   would<\/p>\n
affect   clauses   (a)   and   (b)   of   that   Rule   but   does   not<\/p>\n
control or nullify the effect of other provisions in K.S. &<\/p>\n
S.S.R.   or   those   in   other   rules   including   K.S.R.     Rules<\/p>\n
which   govern   the   service   conditions   of   government   servants<\/p>\n
such as K.S. & S.S.R, K.S.R., K.C.S. (C.C. & A) Rules etc.<\/p>\n
owe   its   existence   to   Article   309   of   the   Constitution   of<\/p>\n
India and the rule making power of the Government conferred<\/p>\n
by   the   Kerala   Public   Services   Act,   1968,   Section   2   in<\/p>\n
particular.                The   rules   thus   made,   though   codified<\/p>\n
separately, are intended to regulate and govern the service<\/p>\n
conditions of government servants in the respective fields.\n<\/p>\n
It is possible that   the aforesaid   rules may overlap each<\/p>\n
other   in   certain   aspects,   and   sometimes,   may   appear   to   be<\/p>\n
conflicting to each other.  In cases where conflict appears<\/p>\n
between   a   general   rule   and   a   special   rule,   the   well<\/p>\n
accepted rule of construction is that the special rule will<\/p>\n
prevail   over   the   general   rule.           But,   as   between   the<\/p>\n
provisions   of   the   same   enactment   or   those   of   a   sister<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18777\/06                      -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
enactment   which   are   intended   to   operate   in   the   respective<\/p>\n
fields,   with   equal   force,   but   overlaps   or   conflicts   with<\/p>\n
each other,   any   conflict shall be resolved by harmonious<\/p>\n
construction.   This   also     is   a   well   settled   principle   of<\/p>\n
interpretation   of   statutes.     On   a   combined   reading   of   the<\/p>\n
relevant   provisions   under   consideration,     it   is   clear   that<\/p>\n
Rule   27   (c)   of   K.S.   &   S.S.R.   cannot   nullify   the   effect   of<\/p>\n
Rule 5 of Appendix XIIA, Part I, K.S.R.   No irreconcilable<\/p>\n
conflict   comes   in   the   way   of   resolution.     Harmoniously<\/p>\n
construed, it is just and reasonable to hold that seniority<\/p>\n
earned   and   determined   in   terms   of   Rule   27(a)   or   (c),   will<\/p>\n
be   lost   not   only   upon   reduction   to   a   lower   rank   as<\/p>\n
punishment or on mutual or inter-unit or inter-departmental<\/p>\n
transfer   on   request   by   such   persons   as   provided   in   the<\/p>\n
aforesaid   rule   itself,   but   also   by   the   operation   of   the<\/p>\n
rules in Appendix XII A or   XII B or   XII C of K.S.R.   Any<\/p>\n
understanding   to   the   contrary   which   would   limit   the   scope<\/p>\n
of   Rule   5   of   Appendix   XII   A   of   K.S.R.   will   go   against   the<\/p>\n
intention   of   the   rule   making   authority   and   the   object   of<\/p>\n
that rule.  The point is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
      13.   The   contention   of   the   petitioner   that   her<\/p>\n
seniority   is   kept   intact   despite   the   conditions   prescribed<\/p>\n
in   Rule   5   of   Appendix   XII   A,   K.S.R.   is   liable   to   be<\/p>\n
rejected   for   yet   another   reason.     The   effect   of   Rule   5   is<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18777\/06                      -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
that   the   service   rendered   with   all   the   benefits   accrued<\/p>\n
prior   to   the   enjoyment   of   leave   without   allowances   will<\/p>\n
stand     severed.    Consequently,  the  officer  commences  a  new<\/p>\n
service   because   he   is   a   new   entrant   in   service.     The<\/p>\n
seniority   earned   by   virtue   of   the   prior   service   will   also<\/p>\n
be   lost   to   the   officer,   as   he     is   subjected   to   the<\/p>\n
conditions   laid   down   in   Rule   5.     I   may   point   out   at   the<\/p>\n
risk   of   repetition   that   the   only   right   protected   is   the<\/p>\n
right   to   rejoin   the   service   in   the   same     grade   or   post   as<\/p>\n
though   he   is   a   new   entrant   to   the   service.     The   message<\/p>\n
sought   to   be   conveyed   to   those   who   avail   leave   without<\/p>\n
allowances,   for   certain   purposes,   before   completion   of<\/p>\n
probation,     is   clear   from   the   language   of   Rule   5   of<\/p>\n
Appendix   XII   A   of   K.S.R.   and   the   corresponding   provisions<\/p>\n
in Appendix XII B and C of K.S.R.\n<\/p>\n
      In   the   result,   the   challenge   to   Ext.   P9   fails.     The<\/p>\n
rejection   of   the   claim   of   the   petitioner   to   assign   her<\/p>\n
seniority   with   effect   from   19-4-1989   in   the   post   of   Staff<\/p>\n
Nurse does not call for interference.  The writ petition is<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          K.K. DENESAN<\/p>\n
                                                               JUDGE<\/p>\n
jan\/-\n<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18777\/06    -13-<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ms.J. Sreekala vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 18777 of 2006(I) 1. MS.J. SREEKALA, STAFF NURSE, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, For Petitioner :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN For […]<\/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-85663","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMs.J. Sreekala vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2006 - 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\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ms.J. Sreekala vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-05T13:05:53+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ms.J. Sreekala vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-05T13:05:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2832,\"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\\\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Ms.J. Sreekala vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-05T13:05:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ms.J. Sreekala vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Ms.J. Sreekala vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2006 - 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\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ms.J. Sreekala vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-05T13:05:53+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ms.J. Sreekala vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-05T13:05:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006"},"wordCount":2832,"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\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006","name":"Ms.J. Sreekala vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-05T13:05:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-j-sreekala-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ms.J. Sreekala vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2006"}]},{"@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\/85663","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=85663"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85663\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85663"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85663"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85663"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}