CRL.M.C. No. 10463 of 2023 This High Court of Kerala, in a decision by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan, exercises inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding arising from Crime No.1389/2020 and CC 236/2021 against four accused. The petition, Crl.M.C. No. 10463 of 2023, seeks to quash on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the dispute; affidavits from the victims support the move and indicate no objection to quashing. The offences alleged are 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 r/w 149 IPC, which are generally non-compoundable. The Public Prosecutor initially objected to quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded that a settlement exists. The court thoroughly evaluates precedents, especially State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688), which lays down when non-compoundable offences with a private civil character can be quashed under S.482 CrPC upon settlement, while excluding heinous or serious offences and offences under special statutes such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, or offences by public servants. The judgments in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab are cited as background. After considering the facts and the affidavits, the court holds the dispute is private and the settlement genuine, and thus allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes all further proceedings. The order is by a Single Judge (P. V. Kunhikrishnan). The appendix lists annexures; neutral citation is not provided.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No.1110/2010) arising from a petition by Omana Ramachandran seeking compensation for injuries from a road accident on 11 March 2005. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod, awarded Rs. 1,94,500 as compensation, holding the insurer liable for payment. The appellant, a 35-year-old housewife, contends that the disability certificate Ext X1 shows 15% whole body disability, whereas the Tribunal fixed it at 10%. She argues that, although she had no formal income, her domestic services contribute to the family’s earning capacity and thus an imputed monthly income should be used ( Rs.5,000 per month, following Ramachandrappa). She further submits that medical bills amounting to Rs.46,500 (Ext A4) were unjustifiably excluded and that compensation for loss of earning capacity, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and medical expenses should be recalculated accordingly. The insurer (3rd respondent) admits policy coverage but disputes liability and the quantum, while alleging improper calculation. The High Court analyzes Ext X1, assesses disability at 15%, adopts Rs.5,000 as monthly income for computation, and reconstitutes the heads of compensation. It awards an additional Rs.1,88,500, directing the insurer to deposit the amount with interest within three months, and retains proportionate costs. The appeal results in a substantial enhancement of compensation."
This is a Kerala High Court Division Bench decision in a first appeal from orders arising from Ottapalam Sub Court. The appellants, legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S No.342 of 1993, challenged an order dismissing I.A. No.3 of 2020 filed to readmit A.S No.76 of 2013 which had been dismissed for default on 10.11.2020. The Sub Court dismissed the readmission petition on 27.01.2023, citing earlier decisions that undue delay and repeated litigation disentitle an appellant from readmission. The High Court, however, framed the issue around the right to a merits adjudication and the possibility of justice in exceptional circumstances. The appellants argued that their father was aged, ailing, and confined to bed, and the COVID-19 restrictions impeded instruction to counsel; the misapplication of procedural provisions by the Sub Court was highlighted. Respondents contended there was no sufficient reason to restore the appeal and that the readmission would protract litigation, with ulterior motives alleged. Relying on natural justice and the value of a first appeal, the High Court found that readmission was warranted and directed restoration of A.S No.76/2013 on file with costs, directing the Sub Court to expedite disposal on merits within two months. The order was issued by a two-judge bench.
This Criminal Misc. Case under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. concerns ten petitioners (Accused Nos. 1–10) challenging CC No. 638/2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakkad, for offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 341 r/w 149 IPC. The petition, filed in Cr.M.C. No. 5381 of 2023 before the Kerala High Court, seeks quashing of the proceedings on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties. The prosecution states that on 1 May 2022, at about 21:30 hours, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the respondents, causing injuries, but the parties have since settled and do not wish to pursue the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor initially reserves opposition to quashing under Sec. 482, citing the possibility that the nature of the offences and public interest may preclude quashing, though there are no other crimes against the petitioners. Relying on State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court notes that the inherent jurisdiction to quash a non-compoundable private offence can be exercised if the dispute is civil in character and the parties have settled the entire dispute, and that serious crimes and public-interest concerns cannot be overridden by private settlement. After evaluating gravity of the offences, the accused’s antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the Court concludes quashing would not adversely affect society and would serve ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed; Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No. 173/2022 of Kottayi Police Station and all further proceedings in CC 638/2022 are quashed. The judgment is by a Single Judge dated 31 July 2023.
Sundaram Home Finance Ltd, a housing finance institution, had lent to E.R.Ramachandran Menon and his wife and created an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deed on 08.02.2018 to secure a loan of Rs.6.5 crore. When borrowers defaulted, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated and the secured assets were sold to Varghese Sebastian via Ext. P10 sale certificate. On verification, an attachment entered in Book No. 1 in respect of the property appeared, arising from I.A. No. 1173/2018 in O.S. No. 54/2018 before the Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, as asserted by respondent No. 4. The Sub Registrar refused to register Ext. P10 due to the encumbrance and insisted on an ROR certificate. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to erase the attachment from the encumbrance certificate, register the sale certificate without insisting on ROR, and mutate the property. The court, after hearing, relies on Madhan S. v. Sub Registrar, Kollam and Others and Keechery Service Co-operative Bank v. Sajitha Nizar, among others, to hold that attachments effected after the mortgage do not affect the sale under SARFAESI and directs the Sub Registrar to efface post-mortgage encumbrances from Book No. 1, not to insist on ROR, and to mutation of the property upon registration. The petition is disposed of with these directions.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P11, an order of the Government rejecting the petitioners’ plea for regularisation in the Kerala State Housing Board (KSHB). The petitioners—Santosh Kumar S V, S. Pramod, and Abraham Ulahanan—allege they were initially engaged by KSHB on a contractual basis as lift operators and have served for over a decade (as supported by Exts. P1–P5). They contend that regularisation cannot be denied solely on the ground that the posts were not created or sanctioned, especially since salaries were paid by a Residents Association and the posts were effectively integral to building maintenance. They assert Ext.P11 is illegal and unconstitutional, and urge the Government to consider their representations for creating sanctioned posts and regularising their services. The respondents (State of Kerala, KSHB, and Housing Commissioner) submit that posts were neither created nor sanctioned, and that regularisation would establish an undesirable precedent; the KSHB contends it does not control posts without Government sanction. The learned Judge, after analyzing Ext.P11 and related materials, holds that the Government did not err in denying regularisation since the posts were not sanctioned for KSHB, referencing the Umadevi doctrine. However, the Court disposes the petition by confirming Ext.P11 while granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue fresh representations for post-creation within specified time limits, leaving entitlement open for Government decision.
This is a writ petition (criminal) challenging Ext. P1 detention order and Ext. P4 order of confirmation against the petitioner’s son, Santhosh, under the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAA(P) Act). The petitioner contends that seven prior cases were counted to designate the detenue as a "known rowdy" and that the latest prejudicial act, dating 15.04.2023 (Crime No. 325/2023, Kumily), was used merely to create a live link to sustain detention. The final report was submitted on 08.05.2023 and detention was ordered on 06.07.2023, but the petitioner argues there is no adequate explanation for the delay, contrary to the Court’s reasoning in a related decision, and that the records and grounds were not forwarded to the Government and the DGP as required by Section 3(3) of the KAA(P) Act. The Sponsoring Authority allegedly listed offences beyond those in the detention order, and the detaining authority relied on acts involving law and order rather than public order. The petition relies on Jasheela T.M. v. State of Kerala and other authorities to challenge procedural compliance and the classification as a known rowdy. The respondents contend that seven offences were considered, the last prejudicial act was recent, and the detention is legally sustainable under Sections 2(t) and 2(p), emphasizing public order. The High Court ultimately upholds the detention and dismisses the petition, finding the grounds legally sound and properly explained.
This writ appeal challenges the Kerala High Court's February 28, 2022 order in W.P.(C) No.18584 of 2021, wherein the petition seeking enhancement of qualifying service for pension was allowed. The petitioner, a full-time employee in an aided school, claimed that interruptions in service and periods of employment in leave vacancies should count toward pensionable service, which would raise his qualifying service from about 23 years to 30 years 11 months. The appellants, representing the State and its pension machinery, contended that Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR), especially Rule 14E(a), restricts pension to regular full-time aided school service post-direct payment, excluding leave vacancies and interrupted periods, with Rule 31 governing interruptions. Amendments in 2018–2019 to Rule 14E and 31, and government orders Ext.P10, were cited to show the tightening of counting rules. The single judge’s favorable view was reversed, and the writ appeal held that leave vacancies and interruptions cannot be counted for pension. The court relied on established precedents such as Shameer Ali and Sumayamma George to reject the petitioner’s arguments, and held that the government’s interpretation in Ext.P10 binds the petitioner. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment set aside, and the writ petition dismissed.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal from Kerala High Court concerns an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara, arising from an accident on 26.01.2017 involving a vehicle insured by the appellant. The appellant challenges three aspects of the Tribunal’s order: (i) the notional income of the deceased, (ii) the multiplier used to compute loss of earnings and its relation to permanent disability, and (iii) the percentage of disability awarded. The appellants’ counsel argued that no evidence about the deceased’s income was led and that Rs.15,000 per month as notional income violated Ramachandrappa and should not be accepted; he further contended that a multiplier of 9, paired with loss of earnings, was misapplied and that the 50% disability finding had no factual basis in the absence of a disability certificate. Respondents/claimants contended that the Tribunal properly assessed the deceased as self‑employed in furniture manufacturing and retail trade, adopting Rs.15,000 as notional income, consistent with the robust approach recognized in Rajani and Ramachandrappa; that the multiplier 9 was appropriate under Sarla Verma; and that a 50% disability was justified given the extensive injuries. The High Court admitted the appeal and ultimately dismissed it, upholding the Tribunal’s findings, and directing the parties to bear their own costs.
Rajan.K, absolute owner of 0.1478 hectares in Re-Survey No.36, Yakkara Village, Palakkad, challenged the 3rd respondent’s refusal to consider Ext.P9 Form-A under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 to reclassify his land as purayidam/dry land. The land was converted prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, on the strength of an approved layout. The petitioner contends that since the land was utilized with a Building Permit issued in 1999 and construction completed before 2008, it should not fall under the 27A guidelines for regularisation, nor require a separate order under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The Government Pleader argued the land is Nilam in revenue records and the petitioner must apply under the 2008 Act’s rules and pay fees. The court noted Global Education Trust v. State of Kerala (2020) 6 KLT 738, holding that land converted before enactment and used with a Building Permit need not comply with Sec. 27A. The court found the petitioner’s case squarely within Ext.P10 (W.P.(C) No.27496 of 2020) and allowed the petition, directing the 3rd respondent to reassess the Basic Tax on Ext.P9 and endorse accordingly within one month.
WP(C) Nos.15113/2023 & 15147/2023 The petitioners challenge the actions surrounding the Neyyattinkara Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and its elections to the Kerala State Co-operative Apex Bank. In WP(C) Nos. 15113/2023 and 15147/2023, the common petitioner, D.G. Rethnakumar, a member and delegate aspirant, contests Ext.P13, which rescinded resolutions of an Administrative Committee meeting held on 25-04-2023 and affected nominations to the Apex Bank elections scheduled for 15-05-2023. The court traces a sequence of orders: interim arrangements appointing an Administrative Committee, meetings of that committee, and contested nominations. The petitioner argues that the 25-04-2023 meeting was valid, the Convener’s absence did not invalidate it, and the by-laws/rules permit selecting a delegate even if not expressly listed on the notice. Respondents contend irregularities in the meeting, lack of notice, and improper exercise of Rule 176 (Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969). The judge finds that the 25-04-2023 meeting was duly constituted, the Convener’s absence does not invalidate it, and the nomination of the petitioner as delegate does not violate by-laws on this emergent issue. Ext.P13 is quashed for lack of natural justice. WP( C) 15113/2023 is allowed; Ext.P13 is set aside and the petitioner’s vote is to be counted in the Apex Bank election; WP(C) 15147/2023 is dismissed.
This is a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in WA No. 1909 of 2014, arising from a challenge to a government refusal to refer a dispute concerning wages and an incentive scheme for retired employees of Indian Rare Earths Limited (Chavara Plant) to adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The writ petition (WP(C) No.4728/2011) sought certiorari to quash Ext. P6 (a conciliation-based determination by the government) and a mandamus to refer the dispute under Section 10(1) (C) to the Central Labour Court. The events trace to 1996 when the company implemented a no-work, no-pay stance during a token dharna and related conciliation attempts that failed by 2008. The Ministry of Labour, after considering failure of conciliation, concluded the disputes claimed—payment of wages for a specific period and introduction of an incentive scheme—were not fit for adjudication, noting prior court dismissals in related petitions. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench upheld the dismissal, invoking the administrative nature of reference orders and restricting judicial review to material on record, as established in Prabhakar v. Joint Director, and the State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy. It held there was no live industrial dispute warranting reference and that belated challenges cannot revive non-existent disputes. The court, however, encouraged retirees to pursue legal remedies strictly in accordance with law.
This is a Suo Motu petition before the Kerala High Court concerning theft of a gold bangle from the Bhandaram of Sabarimala Sreedharma Sastha Temple. The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, submitted a report on 16.06.2023 detailing how a devotee offered a 10.950-gram gold bangle that was handed over for storage but not properly recorded, leading to non-entry in the valuable-items register. CCTV footage showed an employee, P.K. Rejikumar, handling the ornament during his Bhandaram duty; the bangle was recovered on 18.06.2023 and a crime (Cr. No.56/2023) was registered under IPC sections 379 and 381. The officer was arrested and later suspended; the report highlighted lack of metal detectors at the Bhandaram entry/exit. The Special Commissioner proposed steps: weigh and record valuables, issue a receipt, store valuables in a strong room, advise devotees not to place items in Bhandaram, publish the offering procedure on the Virtual Queue (IT) portal, and initiate disciplinary action. The Board placed on record its adherence to these suggestions (Annexure R2(a)). The court heard Senior Government Pleader, Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, and Amicus Curiae. It cited Travancore Devaswom Act provisions and fiduciary duties, clarifying the Board’s guardian-like role and disposition to protect temple assets. The SSCR 18/2023 is disposed of with directions, including publication of procedures on Virtual Queue within a month and disciplinary action where warranted, and a fresh report on disciplinary proceedings to be filed.
CRL.A. No. 74 of 2008 (D) The Kerala High Court delivered a common judgment in Crl.A. Nos. 74 and 176 of 2008, arising from two criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed by Mulamoottil Consumer Credits Ltd., a private limited company engaged in consumer credit facilities. The two accused issued cheques in purported discharge of debts related to hire-purchase arrangements for two vehicles; the cheques were dishonoured for insufficient funds. The trial court dismissed the complaints on two principal grounds: (i) the cheques were not supported by consideration, and (ii) the complainant lacked authority to prosecute the complaints. The appellant contended that the hire-purchase agreements and Exts. P7–P8 created independent liability for the accused and that PW1, an authorized representative of the company, had proper authority to file the complaints. The High Court rejected the trial court’s reasons as legally untenable. It held that Exts. P7 and P8 imposed independent liability on the accused to pay amounts for using the vehicles, that PW1 had implied authorization to represent the company (relying on Waterbase Ltd. v. K. Ravindra and Another and Indian Contract Act Ss. 186, 187, 196), and that the locus to prosecute could be established despite the absence of express authorization. The court distinguished Sudha Beevi v. State of Kerala (2004) on facts, but nevertheless allowed the appeals, set aside the trial court judgments, and convicted the accused under Section 138 NI Act with sentences till rising of the court and fines of Rs. 11,305 per case, to run concurrently. The accused were to appear for sentencing on 28 April 2014; interlocutory applications were dismissed.
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition (WP(C) No.1015 of 2023) by C.L. Joseph challenging Exts.P7 and P10 orders and seeking a direction to the respondents to modify revenue records under Section 27(C) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018. The petitioner owned about 37.40 acres, with portions in Sy.No.185/2 (Block 29), 185/4-1, and 185/1-1, after land acquisition of 0.0518 hectares in 185/2; the land is currently shown as Nilam though in possession and use as dry land. The petitioner contends that a part (20.02 ares) was to be changed from un-notified land to Paddy land under Form-6 (Kerala Paddy Land Act Rules, 2008) after payment of the prescribed fee (Exts. P3–P6). A stop memo (Ext. P7) alleged illegal mud filling, and Ext. P10 cancelled the application after refunds. The petitioner argues Ext. P7 and P10 are contrary to the Act and Rules, relying on Sakeer Hussain (2020 KHC 647) that post-application cancellation under Section 27A(11) is inappropriate, and citing Jessy Abraham (2022 (1) KLT 461) to emphasize that water-logged or low-lying land cannot dictate data-bank inclusion. The court held that Exts. P7 and P10 were improper, and directed the respondents to resume proceedings under Exts. P5–P6 and to effect revenue-record changes under Section 27(C) within one month, ultimately allowing the writ petition.
The Regular First Appeal arises from a money-claim suit (O.S. 128/1998) filed by Cleamiss, the plaintiff, for recovery of sums allegedly due under a building contract executed on 7 June 1995, including Rs. 75,000 for foundation and Rs. 75,000 for the terrace, with a stated completion timeline and an advance paid. The defendant, Sidhique, denied execution of Ext. A1 (the written agreement) and contested that the construction work was completed under oral terms supervised by his father and brother; he claimed only Rs. 5,000 had been paid and assets or other payments were not due. The trial court partially decreed in favor of the plaintiff, holding the plaintiff entitled to Rs. 1,45,000 with 12% interest from suit date and costs, while dismissing compensation claims. The defendant appealed, challenging the existence and execution of Ext. A1, the reliance on signature comparison under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the overall evidentiary approach. The High Court, after examining the evidence, clarified that when a signature is disowned, the plaintiff bears the burden to prove execution; it acknowledged the court’s power to compare signatures but found the plaintiff failed to establish execution. The court also discussed bar provisions under Order II Rule 2 CPC and previous suits. Ultimately, the appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower decree, and held no costs."
The petitioner, J. Mini, who served as Headmistress and later as HSST in the Higher Secondary section, challenged Government and school authority actions regarding the appointment of a new Principal at Guhanandapuram Higher Secondary School, arguing for transfer-based appointment under the 2:1 ratio between qualified HSSTs and Headmasters as per Chapter XXXII Rule 6 of the Kerala Education Rules (KER). A vacancy arose on 01.04.2018 for the Principal post, and the petitioner contended she was the most suitable candidate; yet the 5th respondent appointed a senior HSST (Aji P.) to the post. The petitioner approached the court, which earlier directed disposal of Ext.P9 and issued Ext.P11 directing that she is qualified and entitled to transfer as Principal, with Ext.P12 appointing her by transfer from 01.04.2018. The 4th respondent raised two main objections in Ext.P13: (i) creation of an additional post would be required, risking financial loss to the Government, and (ii) the lack of a vacancy in the HSST stream would affect salary and staffing. The court examined settled law, notably Jayaraj V.P. and M. Valsalakumari Devi, concluding that lack of vacancy cannot bar the transfer appointment and that supernumerary posts may be considered when needed. The court ultimately directed that the petitioner be appointed as Principal with effect from 01.04.2018, and that monetary benefits be released subject to future determinations, with a one-month deadline to issue the appointment order and four months to disburse back payments, excluding periods when the interim Principal served.
The instant criminal appeal, Crl.A No. 943 of 2009, challenges a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act by the IV Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Thodupuzha, for possession of 1.400 litres of arrack seized on 20.01.2005 at Kattappana, Thankamani village. The trial court convicted the appellant after trial and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. On appeal, the defense submitted that the prosecution failed to prove that the contraband seized at the scene was duly subjected to credible chemical analysis, and hence there was no reliable link between the seized contraband and the laboratory report. The appellant pointed to Ext. P4 seizure mahazar, arguing it did not describe the seal affixed on the sample nor its specimen, and that several officials who handled the sample during transit were not examined, leaving room for tampering. The High Court cites Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala for requiring seal description and production of the seal specimen in court, and Daulat Ram and Vijay Pandey for the significance of chain of custody and correlation between lab reports and the seized sample. Concluding that the link to the laboratory analysis was not established, the court acquits the appellant, allowing the Criminal Appeal and ordering his release and return of deposits as per law.
This is a criminal appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988, filed by Mukundan (applicant) challenging the judgment in CRA 549/2008 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court No. II, Thrissur, which acquitted the accused Unnikrishnan of the offence under Section 138 NI Act. The trial court had convicted the accused and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment with fines and compensation to the complainant. The Appellate Court reversed the conviction, holding that the complainant failed to comply with clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 due to a delay in issuing the statutory notice, relying on Sivakumar v. Natarajan. The Kerala High Court, C. S. Dias, J., while admitting that controversy, focused on statutory interpretation and precedents. It held that the time within which the payee must demand payment runs from the date of receipt of information from the bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque, not from the drawer’s bank, and that the complainant’s notice dated 28.06.2006 was within 30 days of the information received on 29.05.2006. Following Thomas P.J. v. Vijaya Kumari, the High Court set aside the Appellate Court’s judgment and upheld the conviction, albeit with modified sentence: one day’s imprisonment (till rising of Court) and a fine of Rs. 70,000, to be paid within 60 days and, on payment, compensation to the appellant; execution deferred until 13.12.2023. The order reflects a policy preference for recovery of money and emphasizes lex non cogit ad impossibilia, while citing related precedents on the interpretation of proviso (b) and the remedial aim of Section 138 NI Act.
WP(C) Nos.1165/2020; 1822/2020 These two writ petitions challenge the reversion of tapping workers of the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited from the post of Tapping Supervisors to Tapping Workers following show-cause notices issued in December 2019. The petitioners were initially selected from a rank list after due process; a common judgment dated 18 November 2014 in W.P.(C) Nos. 12176/2007 and 7509/2008 directed the Corporation to fill vacancies arising up to 30 March 2009. Despite that direction, appointments were not made, leading to contempt petitions. After these proceedings, the petitioners were appointed as Tapping Supervisors in 2018, and the contempt petitions were closed. In 2019–2020, the Corporation issued show-cause notices alleging appointments were against vacancies earmarked for other categories, and in January 2020 the petitioners were reverted to Tapping Workers. The petitioners contend that the 2014 direction and the contempt relief gave them a legitimate appointment; reverting would undermine the earlier relief and the court-ordered remediation, especially in the context of reservation norms. The respondents assert the 2018 appointments breached reservation norms and rely on KS&SSR Rule 15 mandating re-notification when reserved-category candidates are unavailable; they contend tapping Supervisor posts are direct recruitment under Special Rules. The Court ultimately sets aside the removal orders, directing reinstatement of the petitioners as Tapping Supervisors with all consequential benefits.
