{"id":90357,"date":"2009-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009"},"modified":"2017-04-19T11:20:01","modified_gmt":"2017-04-19T05:50:01","slug":"the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 16995 of 2005(W)\n\n\n1. THE MANAGER, ST.PIUS X COLLEGE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. BIJU JOSEPH, LECTURER IN MANAGEMENT\n3. SANTHOSH.C. LECTURER  IN COMMERCE,\n4. PRASAD, P.J. LECTURER IN COMMERCE,\n5. SHYMA.S.G. LECTURER IN STATISTICS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,\n\n3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE\n\n4. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.SUGATHAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.MOHAMMED MUSTAQUE, SC, KANNUR UTY.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :20\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                          C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.\n                   ---------------------------------------------\n                        W.P.(C) NO. 16995 OF 2005\n                   ---------------------------------------------\n                  Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009\n\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The grievance of the petitioners is regarding the non-disbursement<\/p>\n
of salary to the petitioners 2 to 5 in spite of approval of their appointment<\/p>\n
by the University.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.     Certain courses were sanctioned by the Government as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 G.O dated 6.12.99. It is a conditional order that the expenditure<\/p>\n
should not exceed the budget allotment for the purpose on any account.<\/p>\n
As per Ext.P1, new courses were sanctioned during the year 1999-2000 to<\/p>\n
St. Pius X College, Rajapuram, Kasaragod District, of which the first<\/p>\n
petitioner is the manager. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the first respondent had<\/p>\n
effected certain appointments as per Exts.P2 to P4 against the substantive<\/p>\n
vacancies, as Guest Lecturers. Admittedly, third respondent had<\/p>\n
countersigned the bills and directed to honour the bills in respect of the<\/p>\n
said appointees. The Syndicate had, later, resolved to make a request to<\/p>\n
the Government for its prior concurrence for the creation of teaching posts<\/p>\n
in respect of five affiliated colleges, including St.Pius X College,<\/p>\n
Rajapuram, Kasaragod and pursuant to the same the University had<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.16995 of 2005                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
forwarded all the required details to the Government and requested for<\/p>\n
favourable consideration of the matter, as per Ext.P15. The Appendix to<\/p>\n
Ext.P15 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                     APPENDIX<\/p>\n
——————————————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
       Subject         Workload per week             No. of Existing       Additional
\n                                                            staff          Requirement\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————————————–
\n       Commerce               47 hours                      Nil                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
        Statistics            8 hours                       Nil                    1<\/span><\/p>\n
——————————————————————————————–<\/p>\n
       3.      Ext.P16 is the reply of the Government to Ext.P15.                  As per<\/p>\n
that, the University was requested to defer the proposal for better demands<\/p>\n
in view of the economy orders. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Petition<\/p>\n
No.7368\/04 was filed by the Manager of the said college and the same was<\/p>\n
closed as per Ext.P17 recording the submission of the learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader that appropriate follow up order would be passed on Ext.P3 therein.<\/p>\n
In terms of the said submission recorded in Ext.P17, the matter was<\/p>\n
considered and Government have issued Ext.P18.                        Ext.P18 assumes<\/p>\n
relevance in the context of the case and the same reads thus:<\/p>\n
                      “Inviting attention to the reference cited. I am to
\n               convey permission for filling up of the regular vacancies
\n               of non-teaching staff. I am to request you to wait for<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.16995 of 2005                3<\/span><\/p>\n
            Government decision on revised staff pattern of non-
\n            teaching staff in aided colleges which will be issued
\n            shortly. Ext.P3 letter is disposed of accordingly.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      4.    On account of changes in the curriculum, appointments were<\/p>\n
effected as per Exts.19 to P22 against the post of lecturers in BBS course as<\/p>\n
two each in Management Studies and Commerce and one in Statistics.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Despite the fact that permission was already granted for filling up of the<\/p>\n
regular vacancies of teaching staff in the college by the Government, as is<\/p>\n
obvious from Ext.P18, the University had again requested for creation of<\/p>\n
teaching posts on the basis of workload of colleges concerned including<\/p>\n
that of the first petitioner. That was followed by a representation by the<\/p>\n
principal of the college (Ext.P24) and Manager of the college (Ext.P25).<\/p>\n
However, disregarding Ext.P18 that was passed pursuant to Ext.P17<\/p>\n
judgment, Government have declined to grant sanction as requested as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P26 and the reason for such disinclination has been given as hereunder:<\/p>\n
                   “Inviting attention to the reference cited. I am to
\n            inform you that the request of the Principal, St.Pius X
\n            College, Rajapuram for appointing teaching staff for
\n            Bachelor of Business Studies (BBS) Course cannot be
\n            granted, as the course of BBS was sanctioned to the
\n            College on specific condition that the expenditure will
\n            not exceed the budget allotment for the purpose on any
\n            account.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C) NO.16995 of 2005                4<\/span><\/p>\n
       5.    The petitioners have produced certain additional documents as<\/p>\n
Exts.P28 to P30 which are the replies given to the concerned applicant one<\/p>\n
Sri.Sabu Malathuruthil on his application(Ext.P27).         The informations<\/p>\n
furnished as per Ext.P30 assumes relevance in the context of the case:<\/p>\n
Item No.7: Yes, In some Private aided colleges, the
\n              managements have appointed teachers against the
\n              workload of the courses sanctioned as per G.O
\n              (MS) No.162\/99\/H.Edn. dated 6\/12\/99 and the
\n              Universities have approved these appointments.\n<\/p>\n
Item No.8:\n<\/p>\n
       a)     Yes, Salary is disbursing to one lecturer appointed for
\n              B.Sc Computer Science Course in Mary Matha Arts &
\n              Science College, Mananthavady<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       b)     Yes, Salary is disbursing to one lecturer appointed for
\n              B.Sc Polymer Chemistry in NAM College, Kallikandy<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       c)     Yes, Salary is disbursing to two lecturers appointed for
\n              B.Sc Computer Science Course in MG College, Iritty<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       d)     Yes, Salary is disbursing to one lecturer appointed for
\n              the subsidiary subject to B.Sc. Microbiology course
\n              started in EMEA College, Kondotty<\/p>\n
Item No.11: In certain cases, the teachers who were appointed
\n             in the courses sanctioned as per G.O.(MS)
\n             No.162\/99\/H.Edn dated 6\/12\/99 were given salary
\n             on account of the judgment in WP(C)’s filed by
\n             the concerned persons.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is pertinent to note the aforesaid 4 colleges were sanctioned the aforesaid<\/p>\n
respective new courses along with the first petitioner’s college as per Ext.P1.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.16995 of 2005               5<\/span><\/p>\n
       6.    That apart, 4th respondent university, has subsequently accorded<\/p>\n
sanction for creation of four posts of lecturers in the first petitioner’s college<\/p>\n
as per Ext.P31 order dated 7.1.2008. That was followed by Ext.P32 order of<\/p>\n
approval of appointment of the four lecturers viz., petitioners 2 to 5 herein.<\/p>\n
It would reveal that the appointments of petitioners 2 to 4 were approved by<\/p>\n
the university with effect from the dates of their appointments as is evident<\/p>\n
from Exts.P19 to P22.         Ext.P32 would also make it clear that the<\/p>\n
appointments of petitioners 2 to 5 were made in accordance with the<\/p>\n
statutes, ordinances of Kannur University in the matters of selection<\/p>\n
procedure, workload and qualification. Thereafter, the salary bills of<\/p>\n
petitioners 2 to 5 were prepared and forwarded for countersigning to the<\/p>\n
third respondent. However, the third respondent declined to countersign the<\/p>\n
salary bills of petitioners 2 to 4 for the reasons assigned as per Ext.P33.<\/p>\n
After reiterating the fact that Ext.P1 order was a conditional one, the reason<\/p>\n
to decline to approve the bills has been stated therein. It is stated that this<\/p>\n
Court in judgment in W.A No.2529\/05 dated 18.8.07 held that Government<\/p>\n
did not have any liability to pay salary in respect of persons appointed as<\/p>\n
teaching staff in respect of courses sanctioned with the condition as has<\/p>\n
been stated in Ext.P1. As noticed hereinbefore, the condition in Ext.P1 is<\/p>\n
that the expenditure would not exceed the budget allotment for the purpose<\/p>\n
on any account . The facts narrated hereinbefore would thus reveal the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.16995 of 2005              6<\/span><\/p>\n
following:-\n<\/p>\n
      The courses were started by the first petitioner-college pursuant to<\/p>\n
sanction by the Government.          Subsequently, the fourth respondent<\/p>\n
university gave sanction for creation of posts and permission for the same<\/p>\n
was granted by the Government as per Ext.P18.               Appointments of<\/p>\n
petitioners 2 to 5 were effected as per Ext.P19 to P22 in the light of the<\/p>\n
sanction accorded by the university and the permission granted by the<\/p>\n
Government.     Most importantly, the appointments thus effected as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P19 to P.22 were approved by the university as per Ext.P32. In the<\/p>\n
aforesaid factual position obtained in this case, it is contended that there is<\/p>\n
no reason or justification for declining sanction for payment of salaries to<\/p>\n
the petitioners. Ext.P33 is unsustainable, it is contended.<\/p>\n
      7.     When the matter was taken up for final hearing, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioners Sri.N.Sugathan contended that even the reasons<\/p>\n
assigned in Ext.P33 unsustainable in view of the fact that the judgment<\/p>\n
referred to therein was subsequently reviewed and recalled by this Court as<\/p>\n
per order dated 7.10.09 in R.P.No.101\/08 in W.A.No.2529\/05.               The<\/p>\n
judgments in W.P.(C) Nos.30527\/2005 and 939\/2006 were also recalled as<\/p>\n
per the said order dated 7.10.09. Thereafter a common judgment was passed<\/p>\n
in W.A.No.2529\/05, W.P.(C).Nos.30527\/05 and 939\/06 by a Bench of this<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.16995 of 2005                7<\/span><\/p>\n
Court whereby the Writ appeal preferred by the Government was dismissed<\/p>\n
and the Writ Petitions were allowed. The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents and the learned Government Pleader strenuously attempted to<\/p>\n
support and sustain Ext.P33 and also the entire actions that culminated in<\/p>\n
Ext.P33. However, they admitted that the judgments in W.A.No.2529\/05<\/p>\n
and connected cases were reviewed and recalled and Writ Appeals filed by<\/p>\n
the State were dismissed and Writ Petitions were allowed.          Therefore,<\/p>\n
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am not adverting<\/p>\n
to the rival contentions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       8.    The ultimate effect and impact of the common judgment in<\/p>\n
W.A No.2529\/05 and connected cases is that the third respondent cannot<\/p>\n
now assign that the appointments of the petitioners 2 to 5 are not in terms of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 G.O dated 6.12.99 and decline to pass and countersign the salary<\/p>\n
bills in respect of petitioners 2 to 5 drawn and forwarded to him in the light<\/p>\n
of Exts.P18, P31 and P32. In this case there is no need to issue a direction<\/p>\n
to the university to approve the appointments in terms of staff fixation. The<\/p>\n
University has already accorded sanction for creation of four posts of<\/p>\n
lecturers as per Ext.31 order based on the workload statement furnished by<\/p>\n
the college as on 1.6.04. As per Ext.P32, the appointments of the petitioners<\/p>\n
2 to 5 made as per Exts.P19 to P22 were approved by the university. The<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.16995 of 2005                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
said approval is legal and in consonance with the order issued by the<\/p>\n
Government as per Ext.P18 whereby Government granted permission for<\/p>\n
appointments in the college of the first petitioner.                          Paragraph 14 therein, in<\/p>\n
so far as it is relevant in this context, reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
               “Annexure A8, is an application submitted before the
\n               State Public Information Officer, appointed under the
\n               Right to Information Act. In answer to Question Nos.1
\n               and 2, by Annexure A8(b), it is informed that Ext.P2(a)
\n               was issued on the basis of Cabinet decision on
\n               24.11.1999, and that the new courses have been
\n               sanctioned in order to accommodate teachers rendered
\n               in excess consequent on the declining of Pre-Degree
\n               courses. It is also stated that the new courses were
\n               sanctioned            as            there              was              budget
\n               provision………………………………………………………..”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       9.     Question N0.7 was whether any permanent appointment in<\/p>\n
private aided colleges against the vacancies which come into existence as a<\/p>\n
result of courses sanctioned as per Ext.P2(a) has been approved and<\/p>\n
Question No.8, whether salary is disbursed to lecturers in the colleges<\/p>\n
mentioned therein, have been answered in the affirmative as per Annexure<\/p>\n
8E. The informations furnished as per Ext.P30 by the Public Information<\/p>\n
Officer appointed under the Right to Information Act would reveal that<\/p>\n
those informations pertain to the colleges to which sanction was accorded<\/p>\n
for starting new courses, along with St.Pius X College, Rajapuram,<\/p>\n
Kasaragod District, as per Ext.P1. The courses started by such colleges are<\/p>\n
aided courses and the colleges in question are governed by Direct Payment<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.16995 of 2005              9<\/span><\/p>\n
Agreement were taken into consideration to hold that by imposing unilateral<\/p>\n
conditions, the Government cannot absolve itself of the liabilities arising<\/p>\n
under such a statutory contract. Indisputably, the course started by St.Pius<\/p>\n
X College, Rajapuram in terms of Ext.P1 is also an aided course and the<\/p>\n
college is governed by Direct Payment System. Ext.P32 would also reveal<\/p>\n
that the appointments of the petitioners 2 to 5 were already held by the<\/p>\n
University as appointments effected in accordance with the statutes,<\/p>\n
ordinances of Kannur University in the matters of selection procedure,<\/p>\n
workload and qualifications. What is emerging from these discussions is<\/p>\n
that Ext.P33 cannot be sustained.         Therefore, Ext.P33 is quashed.<\/p>\n
Consequently, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to approve the<\/p>\n
salary bills pertaining to petitioners 2 to 5 when once it is drawn and<\/p>\n
forwarded to him by the competent authority based on Ext.P32. The 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent shall pass and countersign the salary bills pertaining to<\/p>\n
petitioners 2 to 5 forwarded for his approval as expeditiously possible, at<\/p>\n
any rate, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of<\/p>\n
this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
       The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                     (C.T. RAVIKUMAR)\nspc                                                         JUDGE\n\nW.P.(C) NO.16995 of 2005    10<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 16995 of 2005(W) 1. THE MANAGER, ST.PIUS X COLLEGE, … Petitioner 2. BIJU JOSEPH, LECTURER IN MANAGEMENT 3. SANTHOSH.C. LECTURER IN COMMERCE, 4. PRASAD, P.J. LECTURER IN COMMERCE, 5. SHYMA.S.G. LECTURER IN […]<\/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-90357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 20 October, 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\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-19T05:50:01+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-19T05:50:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2052,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009\",\"name\":\"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-19T05:50:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 20 October, 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":"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 20 October, 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\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-19T05:50:01+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-19T05:50:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009"},"wordCount":2052,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009","name":"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-19T05:50:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 20 October, 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\/90357","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=90357"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90357\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90357"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}