{"id":8590,"date":"2010-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-12-19T05:16:41","modified_gmt":"2018-12-18T23:46:41","slug":"k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.S.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.S.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 26430 of 2009(W)\n\n\n1. K.S.CHANDRAN, AGED 49 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. PAUL P.MATHAI, AGED 47 YEARS,\n3. GEORGE KURIAKOSE, AGED 55 YEARS,\n4. APPACHAN.P.O., AGED 48 YEARS,\n5. P.KUTTAPPAN, AGED 50 YEARS,\n6. P.R.JOSHY, AGED 47 YEARS,\n7. ABDUL SATHAR.K.A., AGED 47 YEARS,\n8. RAJU.M.P., AGED 47 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS\n\n3. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS(CENTRAL CIRCLE),\n\n4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,\n\n5. P.NARAYANAN, FOREST GUARD,\n\n6. P.VIJAYAN, FOREST GUARD,\n\n7. DAMODARAN.K., FORESTER,\n\n8. NAZEER.K.H., FORESTER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :10\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.\n                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n                  W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009-W\n                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n           Dated this the 10th day of November, 2010\n\n                      J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
    The petitioners who are working as Forest Guards are<\/p>\n
mainly aggrieved by Ext.P24 whereby the Government directed<\/p>\n
the  Chief  Conservator   of  Forests   (Administration)  to<\/p>\n
prepare  a  revised  seniority  list  of  Forest  Guards  on<\/p>\n
district wise basis.     The circumstances leading to the<\/p>\n
filing of the writ petition are the following:-<\/p>\n
    2.   The petitioners 1 to 8 are presently working as<\/p>\n
Forest Guards in various Forest Divisions under the Central<\/p>\n
Circle, Thrissur within the administrative control of the<\/p>\n
third  respondent.    They  were   initially  recruited and<\/p>\n
appointed as Forest Guards on 28\/08\/1991 on the advise of<\/p>\n
the Kerala Public Service Commission as per their letter<\/p>\n
dated 08\/08\/1991 (Ext.P1).    Ext.P1 relates to the first<\/p>\n
petitioner and it is pointed out that identical memos have<\/p>\n
been issued to petitioners 2 to 8 also.       Ext.P2 is the<\/p>\n
office  order  by  which  petitioners  1   to  8  have  been<\/p>\n
appointed as Forest Guards in Malayattur Forest Division<\/p>\n
along with 28 others.     The appointment was followed by<\/p>\n
training and after completion of training, they were posted<\/p>\n
to different ranges as per Ext.P3 order dated 28\/10\/1991.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                                -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
     3.      Under the Special Rules, namely, the Kerala Forest<\/p>\n
Subordinate Service Rules, in the case of Forest Guards the<\/p>\n
Unit of appointment provided under Rule 12 is ‘Forest<\/p>\n
Division’.        Earlier, the same was ‘District’ which was<\/p>\n
amended as per G.O.(MS).No.565\/64\/Agri. dated 27\/08\/1964.<\/p>\n
The word ‘Forest Division’ was introduced by the said<\/p>\n
amendment.\n<\/p>\n
     4.      A provisional seniority list of Forest Guards,<\/p>\n
namely, on Circle basis in Thrissur Circle was issued on<\/p>\n
14\/09\/1992 and extract of the list is produced as Ext.P4.<\/p>\n
The next promotion to the post of Forester is made on the<\/p>\n
basis of Forest Circle Seniority list.          Ext.P20 is the<\/p>\n
provisional seniority list of Forest Guards of Central<\/p>\n
Circle     as    on   31\/03\/2001.    After considering  various<\/p>\n
objections, evidently, the said provisional list has been<\/p>\n
finalised as per Ext.P21 which is dated 19\/03\/2005.         The<\/p>\n
petitioners 1 to 8 are assigned rank and seniority in terms<\/p>\n
of Rule 27(c) of the K.S. & S.S.R. in these lists.<\/p>\n
     5.      Now, in the light of the proceedings issued by the<\/p>\n
Government as per Ext.P24, the final seniority list has<\/p>\n
been    upset    and  the  case  of    the petitioners is  that<\/p>\n
respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition filed a writ<\/p>\n
petition as W.P.(C).No.4844\/2007 which was disposed of by<\/p>\n
Ext.P23 Judgment.       The only direction in the said Judgment<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                                 -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
is to consider Ext.P4 representation therein.         Apparently,<\/p>\n
based on the said direction, Ext.P24 communication has been<\/p>\n
issued by      the    Government to    the Chief  Conservator  of<\/p>\n
Forests (Administration).        The learned Senior Counsel for<\/p>\n
the   petitioners      Shri   O.V.Radhakrishnan   submitted  that<\/p>\n
Ext.P24 will evidently show that a wrong principle is<\/p>\n
adopted by the Government that too against the Special<\/p>\n
Rules.    It is pointed out that Rule 12 of the Special Rules<\/p>\n
has been ignored and mistakenly it is recorded that the<\/p>\n
District has to be taken as the Unit of the Forest Guards.<\/p>\n
It is also mentioned in the said communication that in the<\/p>\n
case of inter district transfer of Forest Guards within the<\/p>\n
circle, the seniority shall be determined as per the first<\/p>\n
proviso to Rule 27(a) of Part II K.S & S.S.R.          It appears<\/p>\n
that thereafter a provisional seniority list was published<\/p>\n
on district wise basis as per Ext.P25 in Ernakulam and<\/p>\n
Thrissur     Districts    whereby   the   rank  assigned  to  the<\/p>\n
petitioners in the final seniority list Ext.P21 stands<\/p>\n
varied.        Even    though  the    petitioners  filed  Ext.P26<\/p>\n
representation, when the final seniority list was published<\/p>\n
as   per    Ext.P27    in  respect    of Thrissur  and  Ernakulam<\/p>\n
Districts, their seniority has been reckoned from the date<\/p>\n
of their joining pursuant to their transfer from Malayattur<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                                -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
to Thrissur District.       It is submitted that the same is<\/p>\n
illegal and arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n
     6.      Mainly it is contended that the settled seniority<\/p>\n
of the petitioners cannot be unsettled that too in an<\/p>\n
improper manner.       My attention was invited to Rule 27B of<\/p>\n
K.S.    &   S.S.R    to contend that    even  against  the  final<\/p>\n
seniority      list,    Ext.P21,     there  was    no   statutory<\/p>\n
representation within the period provided under Rule 27B<\/p>\n
and the representation filed before the Government, long<\/p>\n
after the final seniority list was adopted as per Ext.P21,<\/p>\n
could not have been entertained.        It is further pointed out<\/p>\n
by the learned Senior Counsel that by Ext.P23 Judgment,<\/p>\n
this     Court    has  only   directed    consideration  of   the<\/p>\n
representation without laying down any principle and the<\/p>\n
direction     therein   has  been    relied upon  to   upset  the<\/p>\n
principles adopted in preparing the seniority list in terms<\/p>\n
of the Special Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     7.      The petitioners’ seniority has been varied mainly<\/p>\n
for the reason that they have obtained an inter district<\/p>\n
transfer on request.      With regard to the same, the learned<\/p>\n
Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was a<\/p>\n
mandatory transfer going by the Guidelines prepared by the<\/p>\n
Government for transfers, a copy of which is produced as<\/p>\n
Ext.P5, adopted within the Department concerned.        Clause 19<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                               -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
(v)   of    the    Guidelines provide   that   “Deputy Rangers,<\/p>\n
Foresters and Forest Guards who have completed three terms<\/p>\n
continuously within a Division will not be allowed to<\/p>\n
continue in that Division.          Inter-District transfers of<\/p>\n
Foresters will be allowed only against open quota vacancies<\/p>\n
and the vacancies in the stations from where such transfers<\/p>\n
are made shall be reported in the Public Service Commission<\/p>\n
for advising candidates”.       It is, therefore, pointed out<\/p>\n
that any transfer effected under the mandatory terms of<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 cannot be said to be a transfer made on request, to<\/p>\n
attract the proviso to Rule 27(a) of Part II K.S. & S.S.R.<\/p>\n
Reliance is placed on the general orders of transfer issued<\/p>\n
by the Conservator of Forest, copies of which are produced<\/p>\n
as Exts.P6, P8, P10, P11, P16 and P19.       It is also pointed<\/p>\n
out that the petitioners except third petitioner have duly<\/p>\n
submitted different applications for transfer like Exts.P7,<\/p>\n
P9 etc., indicating their preference for transfer to other<\/p>\n
divisions and choices of divisions have also been mentioned<\/p>\n
in the applications for transfer, in accordance with the<\/p>\n
guidelines itself.\n<\/p>\n
     8.      Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for<\/p>\n
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for respondent Nos.5 and 6.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                                -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
     9.      The   Special  Rules   herein,  namely,  the  Kerala<\/p>\n
Forest Subordinate Service Rules show that category 3 is<\/p>\n
Foresters and category 4 is Forest Guards.            As already<\/p>\n
mentioned,      Rule    12  provides    that  “for   purpose   of<\/p>\n
appointment       to  the   Service,   discharge   for  want   of<\/p>\n
vacancies, reappointment, seniority and appointment as full<\/p>\n
member and promotion, the Forest Circle shall be the unit<\/p>\n
in the case of Foresters and the Forest Division in the<\/p>\n
case of Forest Guards”.          Evidently, the words ‘Forest<\/p>\n
Division’      was    introduced   by   substituting   the   word<\/p>\n
‘District’ by G.O.(MS).No.565\/64\/Agri. dated 27\/08\/1964 and<\/p>\n
there    is   no    case  for the    respondents  that  the  word<\/p>\n
‘District’ has been reintroduced in the Rule at any point<\/p>\n
of time thereafter, by way of any amendment of the Rules.<\/p>\n
Then    the   question   is  whether   the   preparation of   the<\/p>\n
seniority list initially suffered from any legal infirmity.<\/p>\n
The argument raised by the learned counsel for respondent<\/p>\n
Nos.5 and 6 is that the appointments are now made on<\/p>\n
district wise basis and, therefore, the same has to be<\/p>\n
reckoned as the unit for the purpose of Rule 12.          In the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit filed by the second respondent also,<\/p>\n
reliance is placed on Ext.P5 guidelines for transfer to<\/p>\n
point out that when transfers are ordered on request on the<\/p>\n
basis of the preference given by the applicants, such<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                                -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
transfers are taken as transfers on request and not on<\/p>\n
administrative grounds.       The details with regard to the<\/p>\n
transfers of the petitioners have been given in paragraphs<\/p>\n
5 to 9 of the counter affidavit.             The plea taken in<\/p>\n
paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit is that the transfer<\/p>\n
of the petitioners would have been purely on administrative<\/p>\n
grounds     had   they not  submitted    applications  for  their<\/p>\n
transfer to their places of their choice.            Reliance is<\/p>\n
placed on Rule 27(a) of Part II K.S. & S.S.R and proviso<\/p>\n
therein in support of the plea that the seniority of the<\/p>\n
petitioners in the post of Forest Guards in Malayattur<\/p>\n
Division has therefore been lost.\n<\/p>\n
     10. Evidently, the said contention cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
The guidelines for transfer cannot obviously override the<\/p>\n
principle for fixing seniority.           Ext.P5 guidelines show<\/p>\n
that clause 7 permits an application for transfer to be<\/p>\n
submitted     to    the authority    competent  to  transfer the<\/p>\n
employee, through the Head Office so as to reach him before<\/p>\n
the first February of every year in a proforma prescribed<\/p>\n
for it.        The clause 8 shows that the application for<\/p>\n
transfers will be registered in the order in which they are<\/p>\n
received     and    an acknowledgement   to   be  issued  to the<\/p>\n
applicant indicating the register number with date.        Clause<\/p>\n
9 gives the manner in which the applications will have to<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                                 -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
be dealt with, if large numbers of applications for a<\/p>\n
particular      station   for  a   particular   post  are  given,<\/p>\n
indicating the preference.           Clauses 10 to 18 also are<\/p>\n
concerned      with   other  procedures    with  regard   to  the<\/p>\n
transfer.      As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel for the petitioners, there is no clause in Ext.P5<\/p>\n
providing for a ‘request transfer’.         Evidently, clause 19<\/p>\n
(v) envisages a case where persons who have completed three<\/p>\n
terms continuously within a Division will not be allowed to<\/p>\n
continue      in    that   Division.       Therefore,  when   the<\/p>\n
applications are made in the proforma prescribed which are<\/p>\n
contemplated       under  the  guidelines    for   transfer,  the<\/p>\n
applicants could not be at the disadvantage of the loss of<\/p>\n
seniority      for    merely  indicating    the   preference  for<\/p>\n
stations.     The same made by the applicants cannot be termed<\/p>\n
as requests contemplated in the proviso to Rule 27(a) of<\/p>\n
Part II K.S. & S.S.R.       A request for transfer will be one<\/p>\n
made under one’s own volition indicating the Divisions.<\/p>\n
Herein the petitioners except third petitioner had made the<\/p>\n
preferences only after their 3 term of 9 years was over at<\/p>\n
the time of general transfer, which is not disputed.        It is<\/p>\n
stated in para 11 of the counter affidavit that their<\/p>\n
transfer would have been on administrative grounds, if<\/p>\n
applications to their choice of places are not submitted.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                                -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Evidently, the applications for transfer by the petitioners<\/p>\n
show    that    they  have   been   furnished in   the  proforma<\/p>\n
prescribed.      Apart from that, the averments in the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit also show that all the petitioners have not been<\/p>\n
given transfers in terms of the first preference of the<\/p>\n
various applicants.       A reading of the prescribed format<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 shows that the caption given is “Application for<\/p>\n
Transfer”.      Column 10(a) of the application requires the<\/p>\n
applicant to show the preferences in the order indicating<\/p>\n
the places to which the transfers are sought.         Therefore,<\/p>\n
evidently,      that   the   petitioners   have  only   confined<\/p>\n
themselves within the proforma prescribed while indicating<\/p>\n
the division to which they are requesting for a transfer<\/p>\n
after nine years.       The same cannot be termed as a request<\/p>\n
made for an inter unit transfer on their own volition which<\/p>\n
alone    will    result  in  consequences   provided  under the<\/p>\n
proviso to Rule 27(a) of Part II K.S. & S.S.SR.        The said<\/p>\n
proviso reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “Provided that the seniority of persons on<\/p>\n
             mutual    or   inter-unit   or   inter-departmental<\/p>\n
             transfer from one Unit to another within the same<\/p>\n
             Department or from one Department to another, as<\/p>\n
             the case may be, on requests from such persons<\/p>\n
             shall be determined with reference to the dates<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                               -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
             of   their joining   duty  in  the  new  Unit  or<\/p>\n
             Department.  In the case of more than one person<\/p>\n
             joining duty in the same grade in the same Unit<\/p>\n
             or Department on the same date, seniority shall<\/p>\n
             be determined —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (a) if the persons who join duty belong to<\/p>\n
             different units or different departments, with<\/p>\n
             reference  to   their    age,  the   older   being<\/p>\n
             considered as senior, and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (b) if the persons who join duty belong to<\/p>\n
             the same category of post in the same Department,<\/p>\n
             in accordance with their seniority in the Unit or<\/p>\n
             Department from which they were transferred.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Herein for the application of the Proviso, the respondents<\/p>\n
1 and 2 have taken district as the unit for appointment as<\/p>\n
evident from the counter affidavit, which goes against the<\/p>\n
Special Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     11. In that view of the matter, merely because in<\/p>\n
terms of the guidelines for transfer, namely, Ext.P5 the<\/p>\n
petitioners have indicated preference for transfer of their<\/p>\n
choice station that cannot be taken as a ground to deny the<\/p>\n
seniority they have acquired in the division concerned by<\/p>\n
treating them as request transfers.       The order Ext.P8 is<\/p>\n
one for general transfers and postings of Forest Guards.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                                -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Exts.P9 and P11 etc. are similar orders.         Therefore, the<\/p>\n
very principle under which the seniority of the petitioners<\/p>\n
have been reassigned, that too by publishing district wise<\/p>\n
seniority     list,    cannot  be  sustained.   In   the  orders<\/p>\n
Exts.P8, P9, P11 etc. it is not stated that on transfer to<\/p>\n
the station therein, petitioners will lose seniority.         No<\/p>\n
separate orders have been passed in that regard.             The<\/p>\n
transfers of the petitioners are on the basis of the<\/p>\n
transfer policy of the Government.\n<\/p>\n
     12. The       principle  under   which the  Government  has<\/p>\n
directed the Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration)<\/p>\n
by Ext.P24 to prepare the district wise seniority list is<\/p>\n
also unsustainable.       The same goes against Rule 12 of the<\/p>\n
Special Rules.        The justification for the same as averred<\/p>\n
in the counter affidavit of the second respondent in para<\/p>\n
13 is that “the rule cannot be applied when District Public<\/p>\n
Service Commission appointment is made”.        It is therefore<\/p>\n
stated that when District is taken as the Unit and inter se<\/p>\n
seniority of petitioners can be taken on the basis of their<\/p>\n
date of joining in Thrissur District.       The special rules as<\/p>\n
existing will have to govern the field while fixing the<\/p>\n
seniority.      If so District cannot be the unit.   Even though<\/p>\n
this Court in W.P.(C).No.4844\/2007 had only directed the<\/p>\n
Government to consider Ext.P4 within a specified time,<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                               -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
evidently, none of the legal issues have been addressed in<\/p>\n
Ext.P24 after hearing the parties concerned.        As rightly<\/p>\n
contended       by     the  learned    Senior   Counsel    Shri<\/p>\n
O.V.Radhakrishnan, importance of Rule 27B of Part II K.S. &<\/p>\n
S.S.R     and     the   time  limit   within  which   statutory<\/p>\n
representation had to be filed has also been overlooked by<\/p>\n
the Government by passing Ext.P24.        Along with the reply<\/p>\n
affidavit, the petitioners have produced true copies of the<\/p>\n
Judgments, Exts.P30 and P31 which have been made mention of<\/p>\n
in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent.     A<\/p>\n
reading of Ext.P30 Judgment only shows that therein also<\/p>\n
this     Court    has   only directed   consideration  of   the<\/p>\n
representation       Ext.P4 therein  in  accordance with   law.<\/p>\n
Similar directions have been issued in Ext.P31.         Therein<\/p>\n
also this Court did not indicate any principle under which<\/p>\n
seniority list had to be prepared.      Therefore, the reliance<\/p>\n
placed by the second respondent on those Judgments for<\/p>\n
upsetting the seniority list and preparation of the revised<\/p>\n
seniority list on District-wise basis cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
     13. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
relied upon the principles stated by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
Rabindra Nath Bose and Others v. Union of India and Others<\/a><\/p>\n
[AIR 1970 SC 470] to contend for the position that the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                                -:13:-<\/span><\/p>\n
settled seniority cannot be upset after a long lapse of a<\/p>\n
number of years.       The said principle has been stated thus<\/p>\n
in paragraph 35:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “Where the changes were made in the Seniority<\/p>\n
             List of Income-tax Officers Class I Grade II as a<\/p>\n
             result of change in the 1952 Seniority Rules and<\/p>\n
             the   petition  attacking  the  changes  was  filed<\/p>\n
             fifteen   years   after   the   1952   Rules   were<\/p>\n
             promulgated   and  effect  given  to  them  in  the<\/p>\n
             seniority list prepared on 01\/08\/1953, it will be<\/p>\n
             unjust to deprive the officers of the rights<\/p>\n
             which have accrued to them.   Each person ought to<\/p>\n
             be entitled to sit back and consider that his<\/p>\n
             appointment and promotion effected a long time<\/p>\n
             ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a<\/p>\n
             number of years.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14. The learned Senior Counsel further relied upon<\/p>\n
the dictum laid down by a Full Bench in T.C.Sreedharan<\/p>\n
Pillai and Others v. State of Kerala and Others<\/a> [1973 KLT<\/p>\n
151 (FB)] wherein in paragraph 47, following the decision<\/p>\n
of the Apex Court in Rabindra Nath Bose’s case [AIR 1970 SC<\/p>\n
470], it was held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                               -:14:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                   “It is   not   in  the   interests  of  the<\/p>\n
             maintenance  of   the    morale,  efficiency  and<\/p>\n
             contentment in the service to disrupt after such<\/p>\n
             long lapse of time matters pertaining to vital<\/p>\n
             service conditions like seniority and rank which<\/p>\n
             have already become settled.    It will be neither<\/p>\n
             just nor equitable to deprive persons who have<\/p>\n
             been promoted many years ago, of the rights that<\/p>\n
             have accrued to them regarding their rank and<\/p>\n
             seniority by purporting to conduct a review of<\/p>\n
             promotions after the lapse of many years.”<\/p>\n
These principles are therefore, relevant here.<\/p>\n
     15. The learned Government Pleader tried to sustain<\/p>\n
the preparation of the seniority list by submitting that<\/p>\n
the request for transfer has resulted in loss of seniority<\/p>\n
by   the     petitioners.    As    I  mentioned  already,  such<\/p>\n
applications are only in terms of the proforma prescribed<\/p>\n
in the guidelines for transfer and in the absence of any<\/p>\n
orders issued in terms of the principle under Rule 27(a) of<\/p>\n
Part II K.S & S.S.R also, the same cannot disentitle the<\/p>\n
petitioners from retaining their seniority.<\/p>\n
     16. The learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to<\/p>\n
the principles stated in paragraph 36 of the Judgment in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                                -:15:-<\/span><\/p>\n
A.Janardhana v. Union of India and others<\/a> [AIR 1983 SC 769]<\/p>\n
to contend for the position that since the petitioners are<\/p>\n
only challenging the principles under which the seniority<\/p>\n
list has been revised and fresh seniority list has been<\/p>\n
prepared,     and    they are not     challenging  the  particular<\/p>\n
seniority assigned to any individual party concerned, it is<\/p>\n
not necessary to implead all the persons who are included<\/p>\n
in the revised seniority list above them.         In paragraph 36<\/p>\n
of the said Judgment it was held by the Apex Court thus:-<\/p>\n
                   “…..In this case, appellant does not claim<\/p>\n
             seniority over any particular individual in the<\/p>\n
             background of any particular fact controverted by<\/p>\n
             that person against whom the claim is made.       The<\/p>\n
             contention is that criteria adopted by the Union<\/p>\n
             Government in drawing-up the impugned seniority<\/p>\n
             list are invalid and illegal and the relief is<\/p>\n
             claimed against the Union Government restraining<\/p>\n
             it from upsetting or quashing the already drawn<\/p>\n
             up   valid  list and     for  quashing  the impugned<\/p>\n
             seniority   list.     Thus   the  relief  is  claimed<\/p>\n
             against the Union Government and not against any<\/p>\n
             particular individual.       In this background, we<\/p>\n
             consider    it unnecessary     to  have  all  direct<\/p>\n
             recruits to be impleaded as respondents.      We may<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                                -:16:-<\/span><\/p>\n
             in   this  connection    refer  to  General Manager,<\/p>\n
             South    Central  Rly.,     Secundrabad   v.  A.V.R.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Sidhanti (1974) 3 SCR 207 at p.212: (AIR 1974 SC<\/p>\n
             1755    at P.1759).      Repelling  a contention  on<\/p>\n
             behalf of the appellant that the writ petitioners<\/p>\n
             did not implead about 120 employees who were<\/p>\n
             likely to be affected by the decision in the<\/p>\n
             case, this Court observed that the respondents<\/p>\n
             (original    petitioners)     are   impeaching   the<\/p>\n
             validity of those policy decisions on the ground<\/p>\n
             of their being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of<\/p>\n
             the Constitution.     The proceedings are analogous<\/p>\n
             to those in which the constitutionality of a<\/p>\n
             statutory    rule  regulating     to   seniority  of<\/p>\n
             government   servants     is  assailed.     In  such<\/p>\n
             proceedings,    the    necessary   parties   to   be<\/p>\n
             impleaded are those against whom the relief is<\/p>\n
             sought,   and   in   whose    absence  no  effective<\/p>\n
             decision    can   be     rendered   by   the   Court<\/p>\n
             Approaching the matter from this angle, it may be<\/p>\n
             noticed that relief is sought only against the<\/p>\n
             Union of India and the concerned Ministry and not<\/p>\n
             against   any  individual    nor  any  seniority  is<\/p>\n
             claimed   by  anyone    individual  against  another<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                               -:17:-<\/span><\/p>\n
             particular  individual   and, therefore, even  if<\/p>\n
             technically the direct recruits were not before<\/p>\n
             the Court, the petition is not likely to fail on<\/p>\n
             that ground.   The contention of the respondents<\/p>\n
             for    this additional    reason  must  also   be<\/p>\n
             negatived.”\n<\/p>\n
     17. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the<\/p>\n
decision of the Apex Court in H.S.Vankani and Others v.<\/p>\n
State of Gujarat and Others<\/a> [(2010) 4 SCC 301] especially<\/p>\n
in paragraph 38 to contend for the position that once the<\/p>\n
seniority has been settled, the same cannot be unsettled<\/p>\n
and   such    unsettlement  may   result  in bitterness  among<\/p>\n
Government employees.\n<\/p>\n
     18. The Government has evidently acted illegally in<\/p>\n
issuing a direction as Ext.P24 ignoring Rule 12 of the<\/p>\n
Special Rules that too in upsetting the seniority list<\/p>\n
which has become final.      Evidently, there was no challenge<\/p>\n
against the seniority list under the relevant Rule 27B of<\/p>\n
Part II K.S. & S.S.R within the time provided.         A mere<\/p>\n
direction issued as Ext.P24 that too against the relevant<\/p>\n
clauses in the Special Rules cannot be justified.<\/p>\n
     19. Therefore, writ petition is allowed.       Ext.P24 is<\/p>\n
quashed.      The seniority list which is prepared based on<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.26430\/2009
\n                                -:18:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P24 is only dependent on Ext.P24 itself.      Therefore, it<\/p>\n
cannot survive once it is held that Ext.P24 is illegal.<\/p>\n
Therefore, Ext.P27 is also quashed.        It is declared that<\/p>\n
the seniority list Ext.P21 is valid and the respondent Nos.<\/p>\n
1 to 4 are therefore directed to effect promotions in terms<\/p>\n
of Ext.P21 seniority list after revising the promotions<\/p>\n
already made.        Consequential orders granting promotion to<\/p>\n
the post of Foresters after considering the claims of the<\/p>\n
petitioners will be issued within a period of two months<\/p>\n
from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment.       No<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                             (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)<\/p>\n
ms<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.S.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 26430 of 2009(W) 1. K.S.CHANDRAN, AGED 49 YEARS, … Petitioner 2. PAUL P.MATHAI, AGED 47 YEARS, 3. GEORGE KURIAKOSE, AGED 55 YEARS, 4. APPACHAN.P.O., AGED 48 YEARS, 5. P.KUTTAPPAN, AGED 50 YEARS, 6. P.R.JOSHY, […]<\/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-8590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.S.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2010 - 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\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.S.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-18T23:46:41+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.S.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-18T23:46:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3683,\"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\\\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010\",\"name\":\"K.S.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-18T23:46:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.S.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"K.S.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2010 - 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\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.S.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-18T23:46:41+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.S.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-18T23:46:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010"},"wordCount":3683,"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\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010","name":"K.S.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-18T23:46:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-chandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.S.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/8590","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=8590"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8590\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}