Supreme Court of India
P. RAGHAVA KURUP AND ANR.versusV. ANANTHAKUMARI AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2007 INSC 186
- Decided
- 22 February 2007
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A K MATHUR
Holding
A harmonious reading of Note I to Rule I with Rule 438 shows that non‑teaching staff qualified for the post may be appointed if no eligible teachers are available, and the particular provision prevails.
Summary
The respondent, a peon in a private aided school, possessed the qualifications for a High School Assistant (Hindi) language teacher position that became vacant. The school appointed another candidate, prompting the respondent to seek appointment under Kerala Education Rules, 1959. The Director of Public Instructions set aside the appointment, a single High Court judge upheld that decision, but the Kerala High Court Division Bench reversed it, allowing the respondent's appointment. The Supreme Court examined whether Rule I (with Note I) and Rule 438 (or 43B) could be read harmoniously to permit a non‑teaching staff member to be appointed as a language teacher when no eligible teachers were available. It held that the particular provision in Note I does not conflict with Rule 438 and, read together, authorises such appointment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Division Bench’s decision.
Issues considered
- Whether a non‑teaching staff member (peon) can be appointed as a language teacher under Kerala Education Rules when no eligible teachers are available.
- Whether the general provision of Rule 438 overrides the particular provision of Note I to Rule I, or vice‑versa.
Legislation cited
Subjects
appointmentlanguage teachernon‑teaching staffKerala Education Rulesstatutory interpretationharmonious constructionspecial vs general provisionpromotion eligibility
Judgment
.-
A P. RAGHAVA KURUP AND ANR.
v.
1 ,(
-
V. ANANTHAKUMARI AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 22, 2007
B [A.K. MATHUR AND H.S. BED!, JJ.]
Kera/a Education Act, 1958:
Kera/a Education Rules, 1959-Rules I and 43B-Language teacher
c in aided schools-Appointment of-Non-teaching staff-Eligibility-Held,
yes provided he has the prescribed qualifications and there is no teacher
eligible for promotion or for appointment to such post under these Rules.
, Interpretations of Statues:
D Harmonious construction-When object sought to be achieved can be
achieved without violation to any rule then ii should be so read
Particular provisions-Will get priority over the general law if it does
not run counter to the general law.
E Legal Maxims;
"Generalia specialibus non derogant" means, particular provision
will override the general provision.
.. Service condition of aided school teachers is regulated by Chapter XIV
F of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the
Rules") framed under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be
referred to as "the Act"). Rule I empowers the-Managers of the Private
Schools to make appointment of a candidate who possesses prescribed
qualification. Rule 43B deals with appointment of a language teacher and is
a general rule, however, Rule 43B especially deals with the appointment of a
G
particular category i.e. language teacher in such schools. Notes-I to Rule I
contemplates that members of the non-teaching staff shall also be eligible for 1-
appointment as a teacher provided he has the prescribed qualifications and
there is no teacher eligible for promotion or for appointment to such post
I
-
H 1058
Y·
P. RAGHAVA KURUP v. V. ANANTHAKUMARI 1059
-
,
) ~ under these Rules meaning thereby that non teaching staff like Oerks, Peons, A
Sweepers and other staff if they possess necessary qualifications they would
also be eligible for being appointed as teacher provided there is no teacher
eligible for promotion or for appointment to such post under these rules.
Respondent, working as a Peon in the Hig~ School, possessed all necessary
qualification for being considered for appointment as High School Assistant
(Hindi). On account of retirement, a vacancy in High School Assistant (Hindi)
B
arose in the School and since other in cum bents in the School were not eligible
- '<
and respondent alone was eligible for being considered for appointment to
the said post, therefore, she made a request to management to consider her
case but the Management did not accede to her request and rejected the same
and instead the appellant was appointed which was approved by the District
Education Officer. The appeal filed before the Director of Public instructions
c
was allowed and the appointment of appellant herein was set aside Single Judge
--- allowed the writ petition preferred by the appellant and quashed the order of
the Director of Public Instructions. Aggrieved against the order passed by
Single Judge, the respondent filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench.
The Division Bench set aside the order of Single Judge and held that the D
respondent was qualified to be appointed as High School Assistant (Hindi).
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the present appeal was filed. It was
contended by the appellant that when there is general rule which lays down
that if persons mentioned in Rule 43B (I) are not available then reading alone
with Note (2) appended to Rule 438, appointment can be made from open E
market on the principle that general provisions would prevail over the
particular rule.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
..,._
HELD I.I. That from a harmonious reading of the note (I) under Rule F
I with Rule 438 of The Kerala Education Rules, 1959 it transpires that if
persons mentioned in the categories mentioned in Rule 438 are not available,
then any non-teaching staff who possesses all necessary qualifications being
available, can be considered for appointment of Language teacher. jPara 4)
Delhi Financial Corporation & Anr. v. Raj iv Anand & Ors., [2004) II G
•
sec 625, relied upon.
_j
2.1. The maxim, general principle of " Generalia specialibus non
derogant" means, particular provision will override the general provision.
[Para 5] [1064-G]
H
/
~
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S. C.R.
.;;.
A Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan Dea & Ors., .._
[1966[ 3 S.C.R. 663, relied upon .
. Shrimati !lira Devi & Ors. v. District Board, Shahjahanpur, [19521
S.C.R. 1122 and Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar & Ors., [19531
S.C.R. 533, distinguised.
B
2.2. Irrespective of the fact that the general law does not abrogate any
special law by mere implication, a particular provision that provides for
c
particular contingency which does not run counter to the general law, the
particular provision will get priority over the general law. [Para 10)
[1067-C-DI
-
S. Pirrkash & Anr. v. K.M Kurian & Ors., [1999] 5 SCC 624, Ajay Kumar
Banerjee & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1984) 3 SCC 127, referred to.
2.3. If two rules can be read harmoniusly and the object sought to be
achieved can be achieved without violation to any then it should be so read.
D [Paras 6 and 12[ [1065-E; 1068-GI
P.S. Sathppan (Dead) by LRs. v. Andhra Bank ltd. & Ors., [2004( 11
SCC 672; The Bengal Immunity Company limited v. The State of Bhiar &
Ors., [1955[ 2 S.C.R. 603, relied upon.
E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4459 of 2004.
From the final Judgment and Order dated I0.1.2002 of the High Court
ofKerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 413/2001.
L. Nageshwar Rao and G. Ramakrishna Prasad for the appellants. -~
F
B.V. Deepak, N.R. Shanker and Ramesh Babu for the Respondents.
Th~. Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.k. MATHl.TR, J. I. This appeal is directed against the order passed
G by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in W.A.No.413 of 2001 dated
11.1.200 I whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No. I herein was allowed "
by the Division Bench and the judgment of learned Single Judge of the High ..
Court was set aside.
2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that
H the respondent No.1-V.Ananthakumari (hereinafter referred to as respondent
y
P. RAGHAVAKURUP v. V. ANANTHAKUMARI [A.K. MATHUR,J.) 1061
)was working as a Peon in Viswabharathi Model High School. She was A
_.>
appointed as a Peon on 19.6.1984 and the appointment was approved. She
possessed all necessary qualification for being considered for appointment as
High School Assistant (Hindi). On account of retirement, a vacancy in High
School Assistant (Hindi) arose in the School on 1.4.2000. Since other
incumbents in the School were not eligible and respondent alone was eligible
for being considered for appointment to the said post, therefore, she made B
a request to management to consider her case but the Management did not
accede to her request and rejected the same. Appointment was given to one
- )
... P.Rajeev- the appellant herein vide Ext.Pl dated 1.8.2000. This appointment of
the appellant herein was approved by the District Education Officer by order
dated 23.9.2000. Thereafter the respondent (herein) approached the Kerala c
High Court by filing a writ petition and direction was given by the Court in
0. P.No.19512 of 2000 to the District Education Officer to consider the
candidature of the respondent. The District Education Officer rejected her
claim. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Director of Public
Instructions and the Director of Public Instructions allowed the appeal of the
respondent and set aside the appointment of appellant herein. Aggrieved D
against the order of the Director of Public Instructions, the appellants herein
filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. Learned Single Judge
allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Director of Public
Instructions. Aggrieved against the order passed by learned Single Judge, the
respondent herein filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench. The Division E
Bench set aside the order of learned Single Judge and held that the respondent
herein was qualified to be appointed as High School Assistant (Hindi).
Aggrieved against aforesaid order present appeal was filed.
3. Service condition of such employees is regulated by The Kerala
..... Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Rules") and we F
are concerned with Chapter XIV which deals with conditions of service of
aided school teachers. The Rules were framed under the Kerala Education
Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). Rule I empowers the
Managers of the Private Schools to make appointment of a candidate who
possesses prescribed qualification. R4le I reads as under :
G
.,
" I. (I) Managers of Private Schools shall appoint only candidates
., who possess the prescribed qualification. As far as High School
classes are concerned the appointment shall be made with due regard
to the requirement of subjects as determined by Director of Public
Instruction with reference to the curricula of studies. Whenever
H
1'
1062 _, SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.
A vacancy occurs, the manager sha~l follow the directions issued by
Government from time to time, for ascertaining the availability of i '·-
qualified hand and for filling up vacancy.
Note:- (I) A member of the non-teaching staff under the category of
Clerks, Peons, Sweepers and other staff shall also be eligible for
B appointment as teacher provided he has the prescribed qualifications
and that there is no teacher eligible for promotion or for appointment
to such post under these rules.
c
Note:-(2) If there are more than one claimant for appointment as
teacher under these categories, preference shall be given in the order
of clerks, peons, sweepers and other staff. If there are more than one
y
-
claimant under a particular category, the order of preference shall be
according to the date of their first appointment. If their date of first
appointment be the same, then preference shall be given with reference
to age, the older being given first preference.
D (2) The age limit and the relaxation thereof for appointment
applicable to teachers of Government Schools shall apply mutatis
mutandis to teachers of aided schools. The.date of determination of
age for eligibility for appointment shall be the 1st January of the year
in which the appointment is to be made.
E (3) Subject to rule 51-A, the appointment of teachers in schools
managed by Panchayats shall be made from among the qualified
hands advised by the Employment Exchange.
(4) In determining the requirement of subjects, the Director shall
also issue such instructions as he may deem necessary for giving
F protection to teachers-
(i) who are in service and would have continued in service; and
(ii) who stand relieved as per rule 49 or 52 or on account of
termination of vacancies and who would have been eligible for
G reappointment under rule 5 IA had there been no change in requirement
of subjects."
4. Rule 438 deals with appointment of a language teacher to which we ·'
are concerned. Rule 43 is a general rule but Rule 438 especially deals with
the appointment of a particular category I.e. language teacher in such schools.
H Rule 438 reads as under :
P. RAGHAVA KURUP v. V. ANANTHAKUMARI [A.K. MATHUR, J.]] 063
"438. (!)Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 43, posts of full A
time High School Assistants in a particular Language shall be filled up by
promotion in the following order of preference:-
(0 Lower Grade Language Teachers who have the prescribed
qualifications in that Language for promotion to the post of High School
Assistants in that language at the time of occurrence of the vacancy and who B
had given option in writing as per G.O.(Ms) 612/Edn. Dated 10-11-1964 to
continue as Lower Grade Language Teachers;
(ii) Part time High School Assistant in that Language;
(iii) Other Lower Grade Language Teachers in that Language; C
(iv) Regular Primary Teachers having the prescribed qualifications;
(v) Craft and Specialist teachers having the prescribed qualifications;
(vi) If no teacher with the prescribed qualifications is available in the D
categories mentioned above, Lower Grade Language Teachers in any other
Language having the prescribed qu·llifications.
Note:- Promotion under this sub-rule shall be made according to
seniority from person possessing the prescribed qualifications at the
time of occurrence of vacancy. E
(2) If qualified teachers as mentioned in sub-rule (I) are not
available in schools under the same Educational Agency fir promotion
to the post of High School Assistants in that language, qualified
candidates from outside may be appointed to that post"
F
Note:- I to Rule I contemplates that members of the non-teaching staff shall
also be eligible for appointment as a teacher provided he has the prescribed
qualifications and there is no teacher eligible for promotion or for appointment
to such post under these Rules. That means non teaching staff like Clerks,
Peons, Sweepers and other staff if they possess necessary qualifications they
would also be eligible for being appointed as teacher provided there is no G
-·· teacher eligible for promotion or for appointment to such post under these
-' rules. Rule 43B which starts with non-obstante clause clearly contemplates
that notwithstanding anything contained in rule 43, posts of full time High
School Assistants in a particular language shall be filled up by promotion in
the following order of preference i.e. from a Lower Grade Language Teacher H
~
\
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.
A to the higher post and if a person is not available in the category (i) then
category (ii) i.e. part time High School Assistant in that Language and likewise {
-+
the descending order as per Rule 438. Therefore, on reading of Rule 438 with
Note(i) to Rule I, it transpires that in case candidates in all these categories
mentioned in Rule 438 are not available, then persons from the non-teaching
staff are also made eligible for consideration for appointment. The Manager
B of the School proceeded for recruitment from outside when he found that the
persons mentioned in category Rule 438 are not available. This was protested
by the respondent herein. But this was overruled by the District Education
Officer and ultimately the Director of Public Instruction accepted the contention
of th1! respondent herein. Therefore, the question is whether on reading of
y
--
c Rule 438 along with Note (I) under Rule I of the Rules, can such appointment
be held to be valid. It may also be relevant to mention here that Note(!) was
inserted by the amendment of the Rule I on 19.10.1982 and the Rules were
framed way back 1959. Therefore, it was subsequent amendment to the original
Rules and the idea behind this insertion of the Note (I) was that in case
candidates mentioned in Rule 438 or under Rule 43are not available, then in
D that case one more category is also added to, i.e. member of non-teaching
staff under the category of Clerks, Peons, Sweepers, and other staff. Therefore,
reading of the note (I) under Rule I with Rule 438 harmoniously it transpires
that if persons mentioned in the categories mentioned in Rule 438 are not
available, then any non-teaching staff who possesses all necessary
E qualifications being available, can be considered for appointment of Language
teacher. This has been done by the Director of Public Instruction when he
allowed the petition of the respondent and appointed her as a Language
teacher. In fact Note (I) to Rule I covers all appointments not only under Rule
438 but Rule 43 also.
F 5. Mr.Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellants has strenuously
urged before us that when there is general rule which lays down that if
persons mentioned in Rule 438 (I) are not available then reading along with
Note (2) appended to Rule 438, appointment can be made from open market.
Learned counsel submitted that general provisions would prevail over the
particular rule. We considered the submissions of learned counsel but we
G regret to say that this submission is not sustainable. The maxim, general
·~
principle of '"Generalia specialibus non derogant" means, particular provision
will override the general provision. In the present case, appointment of a ' \
teacher in language is a special provision in Rule 438 and the Rule 43 deals
with appointment of teacher other than language teacher. In fact, language
H teacher is a specific category. Rule I empowers Manager of private school to
)
P. RAGHAVA KURUP v. V. ANANTHAKUMARI [A.K. MATHUR, J.] 1065
make appointment of teachers who possess requisite qualification. Note 1 is A
~·
enabling provision. If the note had not been there, then perhaps the argument
of Mr.Rao would have been accepted. But the note which was specifically
inserted with the avowed purpose to make non-teaching staff eligible for
appointment; in case persons for promotion are not available and if they
possess necessary qualifications required for the post then such members of
the non-teaching staff can be considered. Thus, Note :- 1 contemplates a
B
particular contingency that in the event the persons are not available by way
of promotion, under Rule 438-or under Rule 43, then in that case, such class
of persons can be considered for appointment provided they fulfil the requisite
qualifications. But so long as the categories of persons mentioned in Rule 43B
are available, then there is no necessity for the Manager of the Private c
Schools to go in for appointment by other method under the Rules. In fact,
learned Division Bench has quoted the object for insertion of this rule which
, makes it abundantly clear that in order to achieve the above purpose, this
Note (I) was added by notification dated 19.10.1982. The purpose reads as
under :
D
" Since there is no avenues for promotions of non-teaching staff
Government have decided to make provisions for promotion of qualified
non-teaching staff to the post of Clerk and teachers. The amendment
is intended to achieve this object."
6. Therefore, the intention of the rule framing authority can be brought E
forth by reading these two provisions harmoniously. The settled principle of
interpretation of statute is that if two rules can be read harmoniously and the
object sought to be achieved can be achieved without violation to any rule
then it should be so read. Secondly, it may also be relevant to mention that
the Note (1) to Rule 1 was inserted in 1982 subsequently knowing fully well
-,<,
F
that Rule 43B starts with non-obstante clause. Therefore, the note which is
subsequent to the Rules of 1959 can be read harmoniously without doing any
violence to Rule 43B.
7. Mr.Rao has invited our attention to a decision of this Court in
Shrimati Hira Devi & Ors. v. District Board, Shahjahanpur, [i952] S.C.R.l 122. G
In that case, their Lordships observed that when express powers have been
given to the Board in terms of this Section it would not be legitimate to resort
·" to general or implied powers under the law of master and servant or under
section 16 of the U.P.General Clauses Act. This was a case in which when
the general power is already there then it was not legitimate to resort to
H
:(
-.
1066 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 2 S.C.R.
A general or implied powers. That is not the case here. ~
~ .._
Mr.Rao placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Nalinakhya
Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar & Ors. [1953] S.C.R. 533, their Lordships
observed as follows:
B " In construing a statute 1t ts not competent to any court to
proceed upon the assumption that the Legislature has made a mistake
i
\.
and even if there is some defect in the phraseology used by the t
Legislature, the Court cannot aid the defective phrasing of an Act or
add and amend, or by construction, make up deficiencies which are )'
left in the Act."
c
No attempt is made in this case to add or subtract any word. It is only after
reading the two provisions of the Rules harmoniously the result can be
achieved without any violence to any of the provisions of the Act or Rule.
~·
The object as already indicated above, was to provide promotional avenues
to the non-teaching staff for the post of teacher provided they fulfil requisite
D qualifications. Therefore, this case is of no help to the appellants.
8. In the case of Delhi Financial Corporation & Anr. v. Rajiv Anand
& Ors. [2004] l l SCC 625, their Lordships in paragraph 17 observed that the
Court must proceed on the assumption that the legislature did not make a
E mistake and that it intended to say what it said. Even if assuming there is a
defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the court cannot
correct or make up the deficiency. As already mentioned above, there is no
such defect because the intention of the Legislature is clear and that can be
achieved by reading Note(!) under Rule I with Rule 43B. Neither the Rule
_,
framing authority has made any mistake nor is this Court going to assume
F anything more than what has been intended by the rule framing authorities.
-Ir
9. Learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to a decision
of this Court in Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan
Dea& Ors., (1966) 3 S.C.R.663. In this case a comparative study of two Acts
i.e. The Bengal Ghatwali Lands Act, 1859 and the Courts of Wards Act, 1870
G were cc>nsidered and their Lordships observed that the Act of 1859 namely
the Bengal Ghatwali Lands Act, 1859 was a special Act dealing with ghatwali
lands. Jhe Court of Wards Act, 1870 was a general enactment. Their Lordships
'~·
held that special statute will override the general statute. In that context, their
Lordships quoted from Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes which reads
H as under :
P. RAG HA VA KUR UP v. V. ANANTHAKUMARI [A.K. MATHUR, J.] ) 067
" A general later law does not abrogate an earlier special one by A
mere implication. Generalia specia/ibus non derogant, or in other
words, ' where there are general words in a later Act capable of
reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects
specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that
earlier and special legislature indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated B
from merely by force of such general words, without any indication
ofa particular intention to do so. In such cases it is presumed to have
only general cases in view, and not particular cases which have been
already otherwise provided for by the special Act'."
I0. Therefore, the general principle which emerges is that the general law does C
not abrogate any special law by mere implication. This principle so far as the
present case is concerned, is not of much relevance because here the intention
of the Rule framing authority was to provide for the non-teaching staff an
opportunity, in case eligible persons from the promotional quota are not
available. Therefore, it is a particular provision for particular contingency
which does not run counter to the general principles. The general principle D
as contained in Rule 438 is that first priority will be given to the categories
of persons mentioned under sub-rule (I). In case, persons are not available,
then this class of persons will also be eligible for promotion. This does not
override the general provisions, it only caters for a particular contingency i.e.
in the event the particular class of persons are not available, then another E
category of persons has also been made eligible.
11. Our attention was invited to a decision of this Court in S. Prakash
& Anr. v. KM.Kurian & Ors., (1999] 5 SCC 624 their Lordships have very
clearly held that if.language of general provision is clear and unqualified, it
prevails over special provision, and special provision must give way to F
general provision if legislative intent was to establish a rule of universal
application. Their Lordships have further held by referring to an earlier decision
of this Court in Ajoy Kumar Banerjee & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [ 1984]
3 sec 127, as follows"
"The general rule to be followed in case of conflict between two G
statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a
prior special law would yield to a later general law, if either of the two
following conditions is satisfied:
(i) The two are inconsistent with each other.
H
;(
'
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.
A (ii) There is some express reference in the later to the earlier
enactment.
If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though
general, would prevail."
B But so far as the present case is concerned, there is no such conflict. In fact I
the situation is to the contrary i.e. the particular law has followed the general I'=
law. The general law was to fill up the post mentioned in Rule 43B and in case
if any person is not available in the category mentioned in Rule 43B, then
persons belonging to the non-teaching category could be considered provided
they possess necessary qualification.
c
12. Our attention was invited to a decision of this Court in The Bengal
Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bhiar & Ors., [1955] 2 S.C.R.603.
In this case'their Lordships have clearly mentioned at page 791 as follows:
" It is a cardinal rule of construction that w!1en there are in a Statute
D two provisions which are in conflict with each other such that both
of th.em cannot stand, they should, if possible, be so interpreted that
effect can be given to both, and that a construction which renders
either of them inoperative and useless should not be adopted except
in the last resort. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious
construction."
E
Both these. provisions appear in Chapter XIV and both are dealt with the
method of recruitment and so far as non-teaching staff is concerned it is
provided under Note (I) to Rule I as a particular provision but that is not
derogatory to Rule 43B. It is rather supplemental that if persons mentioned
F in Rule 43B are not available for promotion then persons in the category of
non-teaching staff are available with requisite qualification then such person _.,._
can be considered for appointment. These two provisions can be read together
and the purpose for which this rule has been made can be achieved. Therefore,
the Note I to Rule I read with Rule 43B can be read harmoniously, it will
effectuate the intention of the rule framing authority. Therefore, this rule
G which was inserted in 1982, can be harmoniously read and it is not derogatory
to Rule 43B.
13. In the case of P.SSathappan (Dead) by LRs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd.
& Ors., [2004] 11 SCC 672, this Court held that harmonious construction
should be preferred than the purposive construction and in the guise of
H
)
P. RAGHAVA KURUP v. V. ANANTHAKUMARI [A.K. MATHL'R,J.] j 069
purposive construction one cannot interpret a section in a manner which A
would lead to a conflict between two sub-sections of the same section.
Therefore, the Constitution Bench by majority held that as far as possible
harmonious construction should be preferred and this is what has been held
by us above.
14. As a result of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that the B
view taken by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court appears to be
justified. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
B.K. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "appointment"Sign in to search