The petitioner, Udaya Sounds, sought return of seven original title deeds held by the Income Tax Department under the guise of a search and seizure, arguing that their retention for over two decades violates law. A search was conducted on 19-12-2001 under section 132 and block assessments under section 158BC for the period up to 19-12-2001 (with the assessment finalized on 31-12-2003). Despite appeals in ITA Nos. 819/2009 and 1326/2009, the department continued to retain the deeds, resisting release on grounds that retention beyond 30 days is permissible if reasons for retention are recorded and approval is obtained under section 132(8). The petitioner highlighted that no such communication or proper DIN-based authorization existed and that the later order Ext.P13, allegedly permitting retention until 28-02-2022, was not properly issued or communicated. The court analyzed section 132(8) and its provisos, emphasizing that retention beyond 30 days post-assessment (under 153A) or after completion of proceedings (as per clause of 158BC) requires written reasons and explicit approvals, with communication to the assessee. It noted that proceedings under the Act were effectively concluded by disposal of ITA 819/2009 and 1326/2009 (in 2010), and that the department had no authority to continue retention. Consequently, Ext.P13 was quashed and the seven title deeds were ordered to be returned within 30 days. The petition was allowed.
RFA Nos.406 of 2012 and 761 of 2013 Two regular First Appeals, RFA Nos. 406 of 2012 and 761 of 2013, arise from two suits filed by Meenu Korah seeking dissolution of two family cinema partnerships: Anupama Theatres and Apsara Theatres in the Sub Court, Kottayam. The trial court held that Ext. A1 deeds for Anupama Theatres made the partnership 'AT WILL' and dismissed OS 55/2009; in the other suit, the Sub Judge decreed dissolution of Apsara Theatres, treating it as 'AT WILL.' The High Court, in a joint judgment by Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha, examined whether the partnership deeds truly created 'AT WILL' arrangements. The court undertook a harmonious construction of Ext. A1, reading clauses concerning the business, retirement, death and the treatment of heirs together. It concluded that the partnership contemplated a continuing business (cinema theatres) and provided mechanisms to handle death, insolvency or retirement without dissolution, implying a duration beyond mere notice. Accordingly, it held that the partnership are not at will, and the remedy is rendition of accounts rather than dissolution. It directed appointment of an expert commissioner, allowed the plaintiff to nominate a valuer, and passed preliminary decrees for rendition of accounts and for distributing assets proportionate to the plaintiff's share. The judgments in OS 55/2009 and OS 131/2009 were thus modified accordingly, with costs in the court’s discretion.
Anil Abraham, the claimant in a Motor Accidents Claims petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenges a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in MACA No. 174 of 2011. The accident occurred on 8 August 2006 when the claimant, riding a motorcycle, was allegedly struck by a tempo van driven by the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal examined Exts. A1–A9 and ultimately held a finding of negligence against the claimant (or at least did not decide entitlement and quantum), with the insurer opposing the claim on grounds that the incident resulted from the claimant’s own fall and that Ext. A2 (police charge) and Ext. A3 (wound certificate) undermine the negligence claim. The appellant urged remand for adducing oral evidence to prove negligence, relying on decisions suggesting police charge-sheets may be treated as evidence of negligence under Section 166, albeit with some court reservations. The insurer contended that the wound certificate recorded fall from a bike and that the belated complaint was unsupported. The High Court, noting the 16-year delay, refused remand, upheld the Tribunal’s finding, and dismissed the appeal. It clarified that while police charge-sheets can be prima facie evidence of negligence, they are not universally conclusive and must be corroborated; Pazhaniammal’s ratio was not given controlling status, and remand would be unwarranted in this long-ago matter.
Ramachandran @ Chandran challenges a Kerala High Court conviction under Section 376 IPC for having sexual intercourse with PW1 on three occasions in 2014, contending that the act was motivated by a promise of marriage and consent, not rape. The Sessions Court had convicted him for rape and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000, while acquitting him of Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The appeal questions whether sex on a false promise to marry can amount to rape, especially where consent is arguably tacit within a long-standing relationship. The judgment engages a doctrinal exploration: consent under a promise to marry, the concept of ostensible consent, and the decisional autonomy of women, acknowledging that IPC’s rape provisions are not gender-neutral in practice. It scrutinizes the treatment of consent under Section 90 IPC (consent given under fear or misconception) and Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act (presumption of lack of consent in certain rape prosecutions), while noting the social realities surrounding the relationship. The bench surveys several precedents—Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Anurag Soni, Deepak Gulati, Dhruvaram Sonar, and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naushad—to determine whether false promises to marry or non-disclosure of material facts nullify consent. The court ultimately finds the prosecution failed to prove a false promise or non-disclosure foundational facts, leading to acquittal and set aside of the conviction.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC 2426/2022) before the Kerala High Court, where 16 petitioners, accused Nos. 1–16 in Crime No.176/2022 of Viyyoor Police Station, Thrissur, move to quash the First Information Report. The alleged offences span IPC sections 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 323, and 324. The FIR relates to an incident dated 19 February 2022 when the petitioners, students of Government Engineering College, Thrissur, allegedly assaulted respondents 2–6, also college students. The petition is grounded on a private dispute and settlement; the injured have filed affidavits (Annexures 2–6) stating they have no subsisting grievance and no objection to quashing. The SHO reportedly verified the settlement and the injured reiterated no objection in court. The court notes that the dispute is private and that continuing proceedings would not serve a public purpose, with a bleak prospect of successful prosecution. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012(4) KLT 108), the judge holds that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC permit quashing where there is a settled private dispute and no public interest in continuation. Accordingly, CRL.M.C. is allowed and Annexure 1 FIR against petitioners 1–16 is quashed.
Mahendranath, the plaintiff in O.S. 916 of 2011, seeks to set aside Ext P7 and restore the suit after a mediation settlement prompted restoration proceedings. The suit, filed for specific performance, was dismissed for default on 30.07.2015. Exts. P2 and P3 sought restoration; Ext P4 by the II Addl Subordinate Judge restored it and mediation followed (Ext. P5). The mediation report led to an expectation of decree and refund of court fees (Rs. 3,30,400). However, due to an administrative mistake, Ext P4 was passed by the II Addl Sub Judge instead of the 1st Addl Sub Judge, and Ext P7, by the 1st Addl Sub Judge, held that Exts P2 and P3 were filed before a court without jurisdiction and thus the mediation report could not be accepted and the suit could not be decreed. The petitioner challenges Ext P7, contending it is erroneous and the mediation report should be accepted. The High Court considers the irregularity and applies the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, along with the principles of natural justice expressed in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah. By Article 227, the petition is allowed: Ext P7 is set aside, O.S. 916/2011 is restored before the 1st Addl Sub Judge Thiruvananthapuram on 04.07.2022, and the court is directed to decree the suit and refund the court-fee expeditiously within one month, after considering the mediation report."
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Kerala High Court challenging an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikkode in OP(MV) No.1883/2004. Abdul Majeed, the deceased, was a motorcycle passenger who died following a collision caused by a jeep on 11 July 2004 near Chamal–Korangad. The appellants, being the deceased’s wife, children and parents, sought compensation as dependants. The jeep was owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent; the first respondent did not contest, while the insurer contended the accident resulted from the rider of the motorcycle and alleged collusion between the appellants and the owner. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,39,500 with costs. The High Court, while allowing the appeal, revisited the calculation using established doctrines: notional income fixed at Rs.4,500/month (Ramachandrappa), multiplier 14 (Sarla Varma), future prospects 25% (Sarla Varma/Pranay Sethi), and deduction of one-fourth for personal living expenses. It also applied 10% escalation on conventional heads per subsequent rulings. The resulting total enhanced compensation was Rs.9,36,250, with 7% interest and proportionate costs. The insurer was directed to deposit the amount within 60 days, and the Tribunal was to disburse funds to the appellants in a 40:20:20:20 ratio after deduction, if any, with due law.
Shajahan, the appellant in MACA No. 3143/2009, challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda’s common award arising from OP(MV) No. 565/2005 for injuries suffered in a road accident on 17.11.2004 when a car owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent collided with his motorcycle. The appellant, a coolie by profession, required 28 days of inpatient treatment and sustained a permanent disability (20%). The Tribunal fixed a notional income, awarded Rs. 1,28,250 with interest and costs, and disallowed other heads. The respondents argued the compensation was excessive and contended that the first respondent lacked a valid driving licence, while the insurance policy was valid. The High Court held negligence established by Ext. A2 and, applying Ramachandrappa, re-fixated notional income at Rs. 3,000 per month (in light of 2004), accepted Ext. A6’s 20% disability and rejected the Tribunal’s 8% scale as contrary to Rajkumar v Ajayakumar, which requires a Medical Board if necessary. Using Sarla Verma’s multiplier of 15, the court recalculated loss due to disability to Rs. 1,08,000 and adjusted other heads: loss of earnings Rs.12,000, bystander expense Rs.7,000, extra nourishment Rs.4,200, pain and sufferings Rs.25,000, and loss of amenities Rs.20,000. The total became Rs. 2,40,800, and the appeal was allowed in part, directing deposit of enhanced compensation with interest at 7% per annum and costs of Rs.10,000, to be disbursed by the Tribunal.
This is a transfer petition under Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed in TR.P(C) NO. 248 of 2022 before the High Court of Kerala by Abraham Varghese, seeking transfer of OP 705/2019 from the Family Court, Ettumanoor, to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner and respondent are married; the petitioner had filed OP 315/2019 for a permanent injunction and OP 292/2019 for divorce in Pathanamthitta, while the respondent countered with M.C. No. 56/2019 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, before the JFCM at Changanassery, which resulted in Annexure-C residence order permitting the respondent to reside in a property in Adoor Taluk, Pathanamthitta. Annexure-D, for recovery of money, was later filed by the respondent. The petitioner contends that all related proceedings (A, B and D) are in Pathanamthitta and consolidation would be efficient; the respondent, however, asserts residence and convenience within Ettumanoor’s jurisdiction and that Annexure-C is pending before a nearer court. The Court notes Annexure-G (Aadhaar) and Annexure-C to show residence in Pathanamthitta, finds no proof of residence at Ettumanoor, and holds that transferring Annexure-D would not cause prejudice, would consolidate proceedings, and would save judicial time. Accordingly, the transfer is allowed; directions for transmission, consolidation, and appearance are issued.
OT.Rev Nos. 29/2022 to 44/2022 (Kerala High Court) This judgment consolidates OT.Rev Nos. 29/2022 to 44/2022 heard by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 12 October 2022. The core issue is the interpretation and interaction of three Government Notifications issued under Section 8 of the CST Act, 1956, and their effect on exemptions claimed by a dealer in inter‑state sale of natural rubber and tread rubber (KVAT/ CST framework). The first notification granted exemption from CST on inter‑state sales subject to the goods having suffered tax. The second notification, issued under sub‑section (5) of Section 8, restricted the exemption to sub-section (1) and introduced an “option to pay tax” under the CST Act, while still allowing a dealer to choose among exemptions. The third notification further nuanced the arrangement. The Tribunal remanded some cases to the Assessing Officer to dispose after considering the second notification. The State argued that permitting a dealer to opt for exemption under the first notification alongside the second would amount to a double advantage and that the second notification supersedes the first, while the dealer contended that the dealer’s choice to avail exemptions or pay tax is legitimate and must be tested against the statutory framework. The Court relied on Hi‑Tek Traders to interpret the notifications and ultimately confirmed the remand, holding that the Assessing Officer must decide relief after considering all notifications. Revisions were dismissed, with no costs.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed by the mother on behalf of Godwin, a minor injured in a 20 January 2005 accident involving an autorickshaw and a car. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, awarded part of the claim (Rs. 48,375) and held contributory negligence (60% by the car driver and 40% by the autorickshaw driver). The Tribunal also disallowed 40% of the compensation for non-impleadment of the autorickshaw driver. The petitioner contends that Ext. A6 (charge-sheet) proves negligence of the car driver; that non-impleadment should not bar full compensation; and that, applying precedents including Master Mallika Arjun, the minor’s disability (4%) warrants a consolidated sum. The High Court reverses the Tribunal’s composite-negligence finding, holds the car driver primarily negligent, and directs indemnification by the insurer for full liability. It applies Pazhaniammal/Kolavan to rely on the charge-sheet and the non-impleadment doctrine, and awards a consolidated sum for the minor (Rs 1,00,000 plus attendant and treatment costs) plus Rs 19,350 for the previously deducted amount, totaling Rs 1,33,175, with interest and costs. The matter returns to disbursement under the Tribunal’s supervision; the insurer must deposit within 60 days.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by the petitioner Muhammed Rasheed challenging an order passed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Perinthalmanna, by an order dated 2-4-2011, directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 7,80,000 as fair and reasonable provision to the first respondent (his divorced wife) under Section 3(1) of the Act for maintenance. The Sessions Court, on revision in 2013, did not disturb these findings. The petitioner challenged both orders under Section 482 CrPC arguing that the quantum and in particular the multiplier of 13 years used to compute maintenance were excessive and not grounded in intelligible criteria; he relied on Abdul Saleem v. Fousiya to contend a multiplier beyond five years was improper and perhaps limited to ten years. The court discusses the constitutional validity of the Act in light of Danial Latifi and notes that the Act provides a remedy beyond maintenance under CrPC, including future provision. The High Court ultimately upholds the orders, finding the 13-year multiplier just and reasonable given the facts and the age of the child; it holds that remarriage does not by itself invalidate the award and that Annexure-C evidence of remarriage cannot cast doubt on the earlier decision. The petition is dismissed, and the maintenance order remains intact.
This Kerala High Court judgment, dated 29 March 2017, arises from MACA No. 1138 of 2013 challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur's award in O.P. (MV) No.2364/2004. The claimant sustained injuries on 17 October 2003 while travelling in a goods autorickshaw. The tribunal awarded Rs 80,100 plus interest and costs, directing the insurer to satisfy the award. The Oriental Insurance Company argued it was not liable since the passenger was a gratuitous rider in a goods vehicle and the policy primarily covered the driver and the owner of the goods, not a passenger. The case centers on whether Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 covers a passenger in a goods vehicle when no goods are carried, and whether benevolent objects of the Act justify a pay-and-recover approach. The High Court reviews several Supreme Court precedents (Baljit Kaur, Challa Upendra Rao, Kaushalaya Devi, Saju Paul line, etc.) and examines the evolving jurisprudence on insurer liability for gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles. It recognizes the thrust of newer decisions that, despite earlier restrictive holdings, the insurer may be obligated to pay compensation and later recover from the insured/owner in appropriate circumstances (pay-and-recover). Accordingly, the court disposes of the appeal by holding the insurer liable to pay the awarded amount and recover from the owner, following the higher court’s pay-and-recover jurisprudence (as in Saju Paul and Manuara Khatun lines).
This is a Rent Control Revision under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, filed by the tenant, K. M. Ashraf, challenging an eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) by the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff), Thiruvananthapuram, and affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on 08.11.2017. The landlord had sought eviction on the ground that the tenant had kept the rent in arrears from June 2010 and had argued for a further rent enhancement after 20 months, which the authorities did not accept. The Rent Control Court found arrears at Rs.6,000 per month and permitted eviction. The Appellate Authority dismissed both the tenant’s appeal and the landlord’s cross-objection, maintaining eviction. In this revision before the High Court, the tenant contends that the receipts (Exts. B1 and B2) indicate payments up to May 2010 and that the purported arrears from 2010 onward are not established; he also argues that a large advance (Rs. 5,00,000) and maintenance expenditure (Rs. 2,50,000) should be adjusted toward rent. The landlord relies on the same receipts and contends the rent was not paid as required and upholds the eviction. The High Court, applying Section 20 revisional powers and reviewing cited precedents (Rukmini Amma Saradamma, Ubaiba, Hindustan Petroleum, Thankamony Amma), finds no perversity or illegality, and dismisses the revision; eviction stands.
MACA No. 191 of 2012 arises from an appeal by ANI @ ANIL KUMAR challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam award in OP(MV) 647/2008 for injuries suffered in a road accident on 10 August 2006, when he was riding a motorcycle and was struck by a bus. The tribunal, which tried the matter along with another linked case (MV 430/2008), held the bus driver rash and negligent and the insurer liable to indemnify the owner, awarding Rs 77,000 as total compensation. The appellant argues the quantum is inadequate across heads such as loss of earnings, medical expenses, and pain and suffering; he also asserts that the tribunal erred in adopting a driver’s monthly income of Rs 2,000 instead of Rs 4,000, relying on Ramachandrappa to fix income for a 30-year-old driver and on Raj Kumar for the principle that compensation must be just and adequate and should restore the claimant to pre-accident position. The insurer denied liability, though it appeared and contested. The High Court, after considering the evidence, re-fixes the monthly income at Rs 4,000, proceeds to compute enhanced compensation, and ultimately allows the appeal in part, increasing the award to Rs 19,600 with 6.5% interest from the date of petition, directing payment by the insurer within two months and mandating provision of bank details within one month. The court clarifies liability and orders settlement with no costs.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal from MACA No. 534 of 2013 arising out of a 2005 road accident in Kollam. The Tribunal under O.P.(MV) No. 852 of 2007 awarded Rs. 2,08,000 with 7.5% interest to the claimant for injuries sustained while riding a motorcycle. The vehicle driver (second respondent) was found to lack a valid driving licence, triggering recovery rights in the insurer under the policy. The appellants (owner and driver) contend that the second respondent possessed a license to drive a motorcycle with gear, supported by Ext. B1, and that the quantum of compensation was too high, especially the disability percentage fixed suo motu by the Tribunal without a disability certificate. They argue the Tribunal erred in not assessing evidence, including the claimant’s income and disability with proper medical basis. The insurer supported the policy liability and the quantum contest, while the claimant argued for the awarding as per injuries. The High Court reconsiders both the policy conditions and the compensation calculation, applying Ramachandrappa (2011) to determine notional income, reducing the disability amount to Rs.25,000 and increasing loss of earnings to Rs.30,000 (from Rs.3,000/month for six months). The result is a reduced total award of Rs.1,80,200 with 7.5% interest, and permission for the insurer to recover amounts from the insured once deposited.
BA Nos. 3115 & 3117 of 2022 Two bail petitions, BA Nos. 3115 and 3117 of 2022, were heard together by the Honourable Mr. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan on 6 May 2022. The petitioners, Dino Antony and Jophin George, are accused in Crime No. 231 of 2022 of Kalady Police Station, alleged to have participated in an incident of manhandling at the Pooja Bar Kalady around 3 pm on 28 February 2022. The offences cited are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC. Each petitioner sought bail under section 438 CrPC, arguing that the allegations are not established and that custodial interrogation is unnecessary; they expressed willingness to comply with reasonable conditions. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed bail, contending the offences are serious and that bail could jeopardize the investigation and witness protection. After hearing both sides, the court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary in the facts of the case and granted bail with conditions. Relying on the bail principle that liberty is the rule and detention the exception, the court cited Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Joginder Kumar v. State of UP to justify the approach. The order imposes conditions including appearance before the IO within two weeks, bond and sureties if arrest follows, travel restrictions, and a 30-day limitation within Kalady PS or until final report, with potential cancellation for breach.
Arun Shanmughadas, the appellant, challenged a common award issued by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in OP(MV) Nos. 2003/2004/2006 and 2008/2006, arising from a road accident on 4 April 2006, where his jeep was struck by a bus driven rashly. The tribunal held the respondents liable (owner and insurer of the bus) and awarded Rs. 2,72,200 to the appellant, with the other co-petitions for classmates disposed of similarly, while the appellant’s classmates also pursued OP(MV) petitions. The insurer had contested liability, while arguing the appellant’s negligence and disputing particulars such as age, income and occupation. The High Court, while allowing the appeal, re-evaluated the quantum of compensation by applying a notional income of Rs.9,000 per month (engineering student standard), a multiplier of 18 (per Sarla Verma) and a functional disability of 20% (supported by Ext A36). The assessment improved the damages for loss of earnings, loss due to disability, and other heads, culminating in a total enhanced award of Rs.5,90,000 with 7% interest and Rs.10,000 costs. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within 60 days, after which the tribunal shall disburse the amount.”
WP(C) Nos. 2517/2020; 25202/2020; 25209/2020; 25213/2020; 26222/2020; 27386/2020; 22466/2020; 23782/2021; 27795/2021; 29919/2021; 30508/2021; 30564/2021; 30652/2021; 30668/2021; 30679/2021; 7461/2022; 27478/2022; 29383/2022; 35026/2022; 35173/2022; 35231/2022; 35246/2022; 453/2023; 456/2023; 1548/2023; 13827/2023; 16984/2023; 17289/2023; 25635/2023; 25814/2023 In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, Justice Basant Balaji delivered a consolidated judgment on 4 March 2024 in WP(C) Nos. 2517/2020 and connected matters concerning Unit Run Canteens (URCs) operated under the Canteen Stores Department (CSD) of the Army. The petitioners—primarily ex-servicemen, dependants, and staff at URCs across multiple stations—challenged amendments to SOPs governing their engagement, coloring their status as employees and the power of the Armed Forces’ administrative bodies. The respondents, led by the Union of India and the Ministry of Defence, contended that URCs are private undertakings funded from regimental non-public funds, with no deep pervasive government control. The Court examined the classic Article 12 regime, applying the Ajay Hasia/ Ramana Dayaram Shetty framework (creation, finance, control) to determine whether URCs constitute the State or an “other authority” for writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Relying on precedents like Ajay Hasia, Zee Telefilms, Rudani, Layak Ram and related authorities, the Court held URCs do not fall within Article 12; writ petitions are dismissed, with liberty to pursue remedies under Industrial Disputes or other appropriate forums, given the private, non-state character of URCs.
WP(C) Nos. 10093/2022 & 21797/2022 The two writ petitions, filed in the Kerala High Court, challenge administrative actions by the CMS management and the Director of General Education regarding appointments to HSST (Mathematics) at CMS Higher Secondary School, Thrissur. Petitioner Sherin Francis C. claims reappointment to an HSST (Mathematics) post in a vacancy that arose after her earlier LWA-era service and challenges an order (Exhibit P11) dated 19.03.2022 by the DGE rejecting her reappointment, while Shijo David C. seeks to be appointed HSST (Mathematics) by transfer following his tenure as an HST in Mathematics. The petitions are heard together as common issues arise: whether vacancies should be filled by transfer or direct recruitment, the relevance of cadre strength versus vacancy, and the application of Kerala Education Rules (KER) Rules 43 and 51A post-2012 amendments. The respondents contend that recruitment was initially direct and later by transfer where appropriate, and that Rule 51A cannot override direct recruitment in higher secondary schools, with references to Jayasree, Reena R.P., and Reshma Parayil. Counsel for petitioners relies on Supreme Court and Kerala decisions including V.K. Girija v. Reshma Parayil to argue in favor of transfer-based vacancy filling and reappointment rights, whereas the court ultimately disposes the petitions by directing the 1st respondent to consider pending petitions, revision petitions, and representations after hearing, within a four-month period, ensuring due process. The judgment emphasizes due process and hearing before orders are issued.
