{"id":91007,"date":"2008-06-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008"},"modified":"2018-07-16T00:00:40","modified_gmt":"2018-07-15T18:30:40","slug":"the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Commandant vs Sam Jose on 17 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Commandant vs Sam Jose on 17 June, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 2633 of 2007()\n\n\n1. THE COMMANDANT,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CISF,\n3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SAM JOSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. V.C.S.NAIR,\n\n3. KALYAN AIND,\n\n4. P.C.KURUP,\n\n5. K.N.RAO,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN\n\n Dated :17\/06\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                        J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ.\n              ===============================\n              W.A.Nos.2633,2676,2782,2798,2837,2843\/07 &\n                 3,61,264,288,359,392,432,484 & 1180\/08\n              ==============================\n                   Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008.\n\n                                  JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Ravindran,J.\n<\/p>\n
      These Writ Appeals arise from the common judgment dated 5.12.2006<\/p>\n
delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.39398 of 2003 and<\/p>\n
connected cases.       They were therefore heard together and are being<\/p>\n
disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The respondents in the Writ Petitions are the appellants in these<\/p>\n
Writ Appeals. The dispute that arose for adjudication in the Writ Petitions<\/p>\n
relates to the eligibility of the writ petitioners for the benefit of upgradation<\/p>\n
under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, hereinafter referred to as the<\/p>\n
“ACP Scheme” for short. The ACP Scheme was introduced with effect from<\/p>\n
9.9.1999 in the light of the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay<\/p>\n
Commission, with a view to ameliorate the problem of stagnation and<\/p>\n
resultant hardship faced by Central Government employees due to lack of<\/p>\n
adequate avenues for promotion.\n<\/p>\n
      3. Ext.R1(a) produced by the appellants along with the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.39398 of 2003 from which W.A.No.2633 of 2007<\/p>\n
arises, is a copy of the ACP Scheme. The ACP Scheme envisages placement<\/p>\n
in the higher scale of pay through financial upgradation.            It is not a<\/p>\n
functional\/regular promotion and does not result in the creation of new posts.<\/p>\n
WA 2633\/07, etc.                       -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
The ACP Scheme contemplates the first financial upgradation after 12 years<\/p>\n
of regular service and the second upgradation after 12 years of regular<\/p>\n
service from the date of the first financial gradation subject to fulfillment of<\/p>\n
the prescribed conditions. The financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme<\/p>\n
will be available only if an employee does not get regular promotion within a<\/p>\n
period of 12 years and 24 years respectively. If within the period of 12 years<\/p>\n
of regular service, an employee gets one regular promotion, he will be<\/p>\n
eligible only for the second financial upgradation on completion of 24 years of<\/p>\n
regular service. An employee, who gets two promotions on a regular basis,<\/p>\n
will not get any benefit under the ACP Scheme. One of the conditions subject<\/p>\n
to which financial upgradation is granted under the ACP Scheme is that the<\/p>\n
employee while accepting the said benefit shall be deemed to have given his<\/p>\n
unqualified acceptance for regular promotion on occurrence of vacancy in the<\/p>\n
higher post subsequently. As per paragraph 6 of Ext.R1(a), fulfillment of the<\/p>\n
norms for promotion like passing of departmental examination is essential for<\/p>\n
getting the benefit under the ACP Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
       4. The writ petitioners in all these cases are employees of the Central<\/p>\n
Industrial Security Force, hereinafter referred to as the “CISF” for short. All<\/p>\n
of them were granted financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme subject to<\/p>\n
the condition that they shall undergo the Promotion Cadre Course,<\/p>\n
hereinafter referred to as the “PCC” for short, and qualify in the course,<\/p>\n
failing which the financial upgradation earlier given to them will be stopped<\/p>\n
from the date on which they express their unwillingness to be detailed for the<\/p>\n
WA 2633\/07, etc.                      -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
PCC or failed to qualify in the same.\n<\/p>\n
        5. According to the Central Industrial Security Force (Subordinate)<\/p>\n
Service Recruitment Rules, 1999, which came into force with effect 4.2.2000,<\/p>\n
the writ petitioners have to pass the PCC for getting promotion to the higher<\/p>\n
posts. After the rules were introduced, the Directorate of the CISF issued a<\/p>\n
clarification to the effect that those who have not been detailed for PCC or<\/p>\n
refuse to undergo or fail to qualify in the PCC will not be entitled to the<\/p>\n
financial upgradation granted to them from the date of expression of their<\/p>\n
unwillingness or the date on which they failed to pass the PCC. It was also<\/p>\n
clarified that the pay and allowances granted to them from the date of<\/p>\n
upgradation to the date of stoppage of such benefits will be recovered from<\/p>\n
them. The writ petitioners were either unwilling to be detailed for the PCC or<\/p>\n
failed to successfully complete the PCC. For that reason, steps were taken to<\/p>\n
recover the higher pay and allowances granted to them. The Writ Petitions<\/p>\n
were thereupon filed challenging the recovery proceedings.        The learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge who heard the Writ Petitions, held relying on Circular No.ESTT-<\/p>\n
1\/37\/05 dated 19.10.2005 (marked as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.1407 of 2006)<\/p>\n
that the writ petitioners are entitled to one more chance to complete the PCC<\/p>\n
and therefore, the benefits given to them under the ACP Scheme cannot be<\/p>\n
cancelled or the salary and allowances paid under the ACP Scheme should<\/p>\n
not be recovered, till each individual case is considered afresh in the light of<\/p>\n
the said circular.    The appellants have in these appeals canvassed the<\/p>\n
correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge.<\/p>\n
WA 2633\/07, etc.                     -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
       6. We heard Sri. P.Parameswaran Nair, the learned Assistant Solicitor<\/p>\n
General appearing for the appellants. Ext.P1 circular dated 19.10.2005 reads<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n
             “It has been experienced in the recent past that the<\/p>\n
       personnel, irrespective of any rank as and when detailed for<\/p>\n
       PCC, submit their unwillingness to attend the same on one<\/p>\n
       pretext or the other.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             02. Qualifying Promotion Cadre Course and promotion<\/p>\n
       are two distinct issues and cannot be clubbed together, though<\/p>\n
       both are inter related as mandated in the respective<\/p>\n
       Recruitment Rules.      While PCC is intended to improve<\/p>\n
       professional knowledge and skills of an individual thereby<\/p>\n
       ensuring growth and development of the organization,<\/p>\n
       promotion is to ensure selection of suitable personnel to hold<\/p>\n
       higher responsibilities and to provide avenues in career<\/p>\n
       progression. Skill upgradation of the personnel depending on<\/p>\n
       the felt need of the organization is an organizational<\/p>\n
       requirement and therefore not falling in the realm of<\/p>\n
       individual’s discretion. Therefore, undergoing PCC is a duty<\/p>\n
       imposed on the personnel.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             03. A person will be given three chances to attend the<\/p>\n
       PCC. Non-attendance of PCC on the basis of unwillingness will<\/p>\n
       amount to loss of a chance.        For example, if he submits<\/p>\n
       Unwillingness to attend PCC for the first time, he would lose<\/p>\n
       one of the three chances of attending PCC. Thereafter, he will<\/p>\n
       be able to avail only two chances of attending PCC.<\/p>\n
       Unwillingness, if tendered, should be unconditional which shall<\/p>\n
       be examined on case to case basis and would be approved or<\/p>\n
       rejected on merit by the concerned DIG. Exemption from PCC<\/p>\n
WA 2633\/07, etc.                      -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
      will be granted by the DIG concerned on the ground which are<\/p>\n
      beyond the control of the personnel concerned e.g. deputation<\/p>\n
      to outside India, administrative reasons, etc.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             04. In case exemption as envisaged at para (3) above is<\/p>\n
      granted, the personnel will not lose his chance out of the<\/p>\n
      above three chances.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             05. Refusal to undergo PCC will entail disciplinary action<\/p>\n
      and also the individual will lose one chance of undergoing PCC.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             06. All details regarding detailment on PCC and<\/p>\n
      submission of unwillingness and exemption granted on the<\/p>\n
      aforesaid grounds, if any, will be recorded in the service book<\/p>\n
      of the individual concerned every time.       This will keep an<\/p>\n
      account of the number of chances an individual has availed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             07. Those personnel who have already availed three<\/p>\n
      chances and could not qualify PCC as on date should be given<\/p>\n
      the opportunity of availing fourth chance (in case any one is<\/p>\n
      willing) as provided in CISF Circular No.39\/1993 dated<\/p>\n
      23\/26.11.1993, as an exceptional case. After giving this last<\/p>\n
      and fourth chance as per Circular No.39\/1993 dated<\/p>\n
      23\/26.11.1993 there will be no further fourth chance for<\/p>\n
      anybody in future and the Circular No.39\/1993 will cease to<\/p>\n
      exist.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             08. These instructions will come into force with<\/p>\n
      immediate effect.” (Emphasis supplied).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7. As noticed earlier, the ACP Scheme was implemented with effect<\/p>\n
from 9.8.1999. The circular dated 19.10.2005 extracted above, clarifies that<\/p>\n
every employee will be given three chances to attend the PCC, that<\/p>\n
exemption from PCC will be granted by the DIG concerned on grounds which<\/p>\n
are beyond the control of the personnel concerned, that if a person expresses<\/p>\n
WA 2633\/07, etc.                      -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
unwillingness to attend the PCC for the first time, he will lose one of the three<\/p>\n
chances and will be able to avail only two more chances of attending the PCC<\/p>\n
and that in case exemption is granted the personnel will not lose any of the<\/p>\n
three chances. The circular also clarifies that refusal to undergo PCC will<\/p>\n
entail disciplinary action and the individual concerned will lose one chance of<\/p>\n
undergoing the PCC. It is further clarified that those personnel who have<\/p>\n
already availed three chances and could not qualify in the PCC as on<\/p>\n
19.10.2005 should be given the opportunity of availing a fourth chance and<\/p>\n
that there will be no further fourth chance for anybody in future and the<\/p>\n
circular will cease to be in force. The appellants contended before the learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge that the circular is only prospective in operation and has<\/p>\n
application only to persons who have to undergo the PCC in future. The<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge repelled the said contention on the ground that the<\/p>\n
circular is clarificatory in nature and it grants a fourth chance to those<\/p>\n
personnel who have failed to qualify in the PCC in three chances. In that<\/p>\n
view of the matter, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to<\/p>\n
consider the case of the writ petitioners in the light of the circular dated<\/p>\n
19.10.2005. The learned Single Judge also directed that if any one among<\/p>\n
the writ petitioners have passed the PCC within the permitted four chances,<\/p>\n
the benefits given to them under the ACP Scheme should not be cancelled or<\/p>\n
recovery effected. To enable the appellants to undertake that exercise, the<\/p>\n
orders challenged in the Writ Petitions were quashed reserving liberty with<\/p>\n
the appellants to pass fresh orders in the light of the circular dated<\/p>\n
WA 2633\/07, etc.                      -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
19.10.2005.\n<\/p>\n
       8.  We have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the<\/p>\n
learned Assistant Solicitor General. We agree with the learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
that by virtue of the circular dated 19.10.2005 the personnel of the CISF are<\/p>\n
entitled to avail a fourth chance to qualify in the PCC.       Necessarily, the<\/p>\n
appellants have to consider the matter afresh in the light of the circular dated<\/p>\n
19.10.2005. The learned Single Judge has only directed the appellants to<\/p>\n
consider the case of the writ petitioners in the light of the said circular and<\/p>\n
not to cancel the benefits given to them or to effect recovery in case any one<\/p>\n
of them successfully completes the PCC within the permitted four chances.<\/p>\n
In other words, the writ petitioners will continue to avail the benefit of ACP<\/p>\n
Scheme, only if they clear the PCC within the permitted four chances.<\/p>\n
       9. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no<\/p>\n
interference is called for with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The<\/p>\n
Writ Appeals accordingly fail and they are dismissed reserving liberty with the<\/p>\n
appellants to consider the case of the writ petitioners in the light of the<\/p>\n
circular dated 19.10.2005 and to pass fresh orders as directed by the learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    J.B.Koshy,
\n                                                    Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    P.N.Ravindran,
\n                                                    Judge.\n<\/p>\n
ess 1\/7<\/p>\n
WA 2633\/07, etc.              -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
             Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                             ORDER<\/p>\n
Ravindran, J.\n<\/p>\n
     For the reasons stated in the affidavit, delay is condoned.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Commandant vs Sam Jose on 17 June, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 2633 of 2007() 1. THE COMMANDANT, … Petitioner 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CISF, 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY Vs 1. SAM JOSE, … Respondent 2. V.C.S.NAIR, 3. KALYAN AIND, 4. P.C.KURUP, 5. K.N.RAO, […]<\/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-91007","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commandant vs Sam Jose on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commandant vs Sam Jose on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-15T18:30:40+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=\"10 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-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commandant vs Sam Jose on 17 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-15T18:30:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1838,\"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-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008\",\"name\":\"The Commandant vs Sam Jose on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-15T18:30:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commandant vs Sam Jose on 17 June, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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 Commandant vs Sam Jose on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commandant vs Sam Jose on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-15T18:30:40+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commandant vs Sam Jose on 17 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-15T18:30:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008"},"wordCount":1838,"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-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008","name":"The Commandant vs Sam Jose on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-15T18:30:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commandant-vs-sam-jose-on-17-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commandant vs Sam Jose on 17 June, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/91007","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=91007"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91007\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91007"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91007"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91007"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}