Mat.Appeal No. 247 of 2012 This is a Matrimonial Appeal (Mat.Appeal No. 247 of 2012) arising from OP No.62/2000 in the Family Court, Thrissur. The appellant Devaky challenged an ex parte decree passed in favour of the 1st respondent Jeja and others for return of gold ornaments, which had been decreed ex parte because the appellant could not appear due to illness. I.A. Nos. 5619/2011 and 5620/2011 were filed to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone the delay in filing those applications. The Family Court dismissed the I.As, holding that genuine grounds for condonation were not established. The appellant contended that she was 71 years old, suffering from various illnesses, had lost her son and husband, and was living alone; she could not contact counsel, and therefore asked for a liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The appellant relied on the principle from G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada (2000) 3 SCC 54 that the absence must be excused to do complete justice. The High Court allowed condonation of delay, set aside the ex parte order, and remitted the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration, with a nominal cost. The final order, dated 5 February 2015, directs appearance and remand for merits with costs fixed at ₹1,000 (corrected later by a separate order).
This Kerala High Court judgment arises from MACA No. 2404 of 2013, challenging a MACT Attingal award in OP(MV) 1331/2008 dated 29-07-2013. The claimants — the widow and children of Babu @ Babu Asari — sought Rs.25 lakhs for death/injury arising from a 10-10-2008 accident on a public road, where the motorcycle KL-22/4934 and a Mahindra Van KL-01/X-8407 collided. The Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove the accident or negligence by either vehicle’s driver. The Insurance Company contested on the ground that the driver was not impleaded and questioned the evidentiary value of the police charge sheet. The High Court reversed, holding that the charge sheet (Ext. A4), produced after due investigation, can be prima facie evidence of negligence under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and that the driver need not be a party in compensation proceedings where the owner and driver are joint tortfeasors. It was held that substantial questions of fact remained and the factual conclusions of the Tribunal could not stand. The court remanded the matter for fresh determination of compensation, directing the Tribunal to fix the amount within four months, after considering the claimants’ Gulf earnings (Ext. A7, Ext. A9) and related evidence. The policy validity was noted, and the appeal was allowed in part.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal concerns an employee-turned-contractor who was injured in a road accident on 25 April 2006 when a jeep collided with his motorcycle near Thodupuzha. The claimant, Anil Kumar S/o Krishna Pillai, sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the MACT in OPMV 999/2006 (Thodupuzha). The Tribunal had awarded about ₹2,26,479 but limited the total to ₹2,00,000 because the applicant had itself constrained the claim. The appellant challenged the rejection of an amendment petition (I.A.1267/2011) to raise heads of compensation and argued for a full revaluation of losses. Citing Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003(1) KLT 115(SC)), the High Court held there is no bar on granting amounts beyond the claimed sum and that the amendment ought to have been allowed. The court proceeded to recalculate the compensation in light of the evidence: injuries included compound fractures, lacerations, and a 16% permanent disability certificate; the medical and related costs were itemized, and the court restructured heads such as loss of earnings, transport, nourishment, medical expenses, bystander expenses, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, and loss of amenities. The total was revised to ₹3,30,480 with enhanced disability to ₹1,00,000, pain and suffering to ₹35,000, and other heads improved. Interest was raised to 9% per annum and costs were awarded.
This is an appeal by the judgment debtor in E.P.337/06 in O.S.185/99, challenging an order dated 29 August 2014 in E.A.687/13 under Order XXI Rule 90. The immovable property, comprising 5.086 cents of land in Cochin Corporation and a building, was sold on 15 July 2013 for Rs. 27,15,000 after ratable distribution among decree holders in three executing petitions (O.S. Nos. 81/98, 84/98 and the principal O.S. 185/99). The decree holder sought sale in respect of all three decrees. The appellant contends that the proclamation of sale in E.P.337/06 was settled without notice under Order XXI Rule 66, creating a material irregularity, and that the sale should be set aside under Rule 90. The execution court dismissed the petition on two grounds: (i) although the proclamation in E.P.337/06 lacked notice, the appellant had notice under Rule 66 in E.P.348/04; and (ii) non-joinder of other decree holders in the Rule 90 petition. The High Court analyzed Rule 90, Rule 66, and case law, including Alladin v. Karimbux and Govinda Menon v. Varkey. It held that notice under Rule 66 in E.P.348/04 sufficed and joint proclamation caused no substantial injury; non-joinder was not fatal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the sale upheld.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2020 of 2014 This is a criminal revision petition filed by Sunny Ittiyavira under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanjirappally, and the subsequent order of the Sessions Court. The complainant, Mardec R.K. Latex Pvt. Ltd., alleged that the accused, as a commission agent for latex supply, issued Ext. P5 a cheque for ₹1,50,500 which dishonored for funds insufficiency. The accused claimed there was no liability and that Ext. P5 was a blank signed cheque taken as security when he was appointed as a commission agent; he argued the liability rested on others and that the cheque was misused. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to a year of imprisonment with compensation of ₹1,50,500 and a default sentence. The Sessions Court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining conviction, directing payment of compensation with a reduced substantive sentence (imprisonment till rising of the court) and increased default sentence. This court heard the matter at admission stage, dismissed the revision, and granted time till 26.05.2015 for payment, with stay of execution subject to payment conditions. It relied on Beena v. Balakrishnan Nair and Sivankutty v. John Thomas to support the principle of substantial compliance upon payment of compensation.
This appeal challenges a Kozhikode Employees’ Insurance Court decision granting permanent total disablement benefits to an insured employee who sustained serious injuries in a motor accident on 4 June 2000 while employed as a driver for Kerala Transport Company (an ESIC-covered establishment). The Medical Board initially assessed loss of earning capacity (LEC) at 40%, which was then re-appraised by the Medical Appellate Tribunal to 60%. The Insurance Court, after evaluating the record, held the respondent’s LEC at 100%, concluding permanent total disablement and directing disbursement of permanent total disablement benefits. The appellant, ESIC Regional Director, contends that permanent total disablement must reflect incapacity for all work the employee could perform at the time of the accident and that the matter should have been remitted for remand/reassessment by the Medical Board or MT; it relies on statutory provisions, particularly Section 2(15)(B) of the ESIC Act, and principles including the power of the EI Court to remit under Sections 54A, 55 and 75, and on the Supreme Court’s decision in ESIC v. Pushpa to argue for appeals’ remand. The respondent argues that the injuries render him incapable of any work, supported by PW1’s testimony and medical evidence showing dependence on crutches, leg shortening, and resignation at age 50. The High Court ultimately relies on ESIC v. Pushpa to affirm that the EI Court may decide the matter on the evidence before it and dismisses the appeal, noting that the Court may delete directions for a Medical Board and proceed to final adjudication. The appeal is dismissed and the respondent’s claim stands upheld.
This is a criminal revision petition filed by the accused, N. Subair, challenging concurrent decisions convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the related sentence imposed in connection with Cr. A. No. 70 of 2012 (Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri) and CC 707/2009 (Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Manjeri). The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed ₹3,00,000 on 27 March 2009 and issued a post-dated cheque (Ext. P1) in discharge of the liability; the cheque bounced for lack of funds. The trial court found the accused guilty, and the appellate court affirmed conviction, directing payment of ₹3,25,000 as compensation under Sec.357(1) Cr.P.C. with a fine of ₹3,27,000; in default, three months imprisonment. The High Court, in revision, examined whether presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act could be rebutted; the defence argued that the cheque was misused by a third party via Abdurahiman and that the witness (D.W.1) supported this theory. The courts below rejected this challenge, observing lack of credible linkage. Relying on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing compensation and practical restitution, the High Court upheld the approach that the compensatory relief may satisfy justice. Consequently, the revision petition was disposed of with six months to pay the compensation, maintaining conviction and other sentences, and clarifying credit for any prior deposits.
MACA No. 487 of 2012; MACA No. 547 of 2012 The Kerala High Court heard two Motor Accidents Claims Appeals arising from a common award of Rs 3,84,750 in two OP(MV) cases concerning the death of two 19-year-old engineering students in a 2006 road accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, held the car driver negligent and assessed a notional income of Rs 4,000 per month, with several heads of compensation. The appellants—parents and siblings of the deceased—contend that the award undervalued the claim and ignored established precedents. The insurer argued the passengers were not covered by the policy. The court relied on Supreme Court and High Court authorities to re-evaluate quantum. It fixed the deceaseds’ monthly income at Rs 12,000 (per B. Ramulamma’s reasoning for engineering graduates), applied a multiplier of 18 (per Sarla Verma for young victims), and deducted 50% for personal expenses. The court enhanced funeral expenses to Rs 25,000 per case, and awarded Rs 90,000 for loss of love and affection, along with an additional Rs 9,84,000 for loss of dependency in each appeal, over the tribunal’s award. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months, with disbursement to the claimants in equal shares. No costs were awarded.
In this Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.MC No. 4386 of 2013), the petitioner, Shaji K.A., seeks to quash proceedings initiated in C.C. No. 100/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottarakkara, arising from Crime No. 1069/2011 of Pooyappally Police Station. The accusation under Sections 20 and 21 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 stems from an incident on 07.12.2011 when police patrol allegedly found the petitioner illegally excavating sand and a final report (Annexure A2) was filed following a suo moto registration (Annexure A1). The petitioner argues that cognizance has been taken on the basis of a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, contrary to Section 25 of the Act, and that the cognizance is therefore bad. The Respondents contend that Annexure A2 is a complaint under Section 25, filed by a government-authorized officer, and thus cognizance is perfectly maintainable. The court discusses the distinction between a complaint and a police report, citing authorities like Sumesh, Ismayil, and Nizam to underscore the rule that cognizance cannot be founded on a final report under 173(2). It ultimately holds that Annexure A2 is indeed a complaint under Section 25, cognizance is proper, and the petition is dismissed with the interim stay vacated.
WP(C).No. 23391 of 2009 (T) This is a Kerala High Court writ petition (WP(C) Nos. 23391 of 2009 and connected matters) brought by Dr. Mathew P. Abraham, then Head Master of St. Thomas Higher Secondary School, challenging disciplinary action that culminated in his reversion from H.S.A. to a lower post, followed by a Government order reducing his pay increments. The petitions also challenge the disciplinary process itself and the Government’s interference with punishment, as well as a related agreement and writ-appeal judgment (W.A. 1537/2003) that reportedly affected seniority and posting rights. The court examines whether the departmental enquiry was conducted in strict compliance with Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) and whether the punishment was proportionate. The judgment deems the enquiry procedurally defective, noting the Enquiry Officer did not record witness statements as required, thereby invalidating the entire enquiry and the corresponding punishment. It directs a fresh enquiry within three months, ensuring opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The judge also engages with minority-rights under Article 30(1) and the enforceability of earlier writ-appeal judgments; recognizing minority institutions’ freedom to appoint a Principal is a vital facet of administration, yet noting the need to respect the enforceability of the court’s prior agreement. Finally, the court disposes of four connected petitions with specific directions, including a renewed appointment prospect for the petitioner subject to disciplinary outcomes, and sets out enumerated orders for each case.
This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case concerns Karan Singh, the sole accused in Crime No. 929/2012 (C.C. No. 302/2012) of Kasaragod, who seeks to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The de facto complainant, Sathyendrakumar, alleged offences under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene language) and 326 (causing grievous hurt) following an incident on 26.07.2012. The investigation culminated in a final report and the case has remained pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. A settlement between the parties, achieved through mediation with the involvement of relatives and well-wishers, led the de facto complainant to state that he has no objection to quashing the proceedings. While the offences are non-compoundable, the petitioner invoked the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to terminate the proceedings in the interests of justice. The court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that the High Court may quash if the dispute between private individuals has been resolved, keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the ends of justice. The court noted the absence of other criminal proceedings against the petitioner and the private nature of the dispute, and allowed the petition, quashing further proceedings in CC 302/2012. The order is issued by a single judge, Justice K. Ramakrishnan.
Mathew and Sebastian, accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 51/2014 of Rajapuram Police Station, approached the Kerala High Court with a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the FIR and further proceedings on the ground that the defacto-complainant and the accused have settled their dispute. The FIR alleged offences under Section 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, based on statements by the defacto-complainant, who was neighbor and whose injuries were minor. The petition contends that mediated settlement restored cordial relations and that continuing police investigation or eventual trial would serve no purpose, would cause oppression, and would defeat the ends of justice. The public prosecutor initially opposed quashing, noting the investigation was in a primitive stage, while the second respondent filed an affidavit confirming the settlement and his lack of desire to proceed. The High Court acknowledged the settled nature of the dispute and, relying on the Supreme Court's Gian Singh decision, held that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can quash criminal proceedings where the dispute is largely civil in nature and the possibility of conviction is remote due to the settlement, provided continuation would be unjust or oppressive. Given the neighbours' dispute over drainage and the absence of witness support for the prosecution, the court quashed the FIR and directed communication to the trial court. The order reflects harmony restored between neighbours and ends the proceedings.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.808 of 2015 Benson, the first accused, challenged a conviction in C.C.No.158 of 2004 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chavakkad after being tried in a warrant case. The prosecution alleged that on 3.6.2003 at about 5:15 p.m., Benson, along with co-accused on a motorcycle with him as the pillion rider, snatched a four-soverign gold chain from PW1 in furtherance of a common intention to commit theft. The trial court framed charges, accepted the accused’s plea of guilty after finding it voluntary and understood, and convicted him under Sections 379 and 414 IPC, sentencing two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 379 IPC and two years under Section 414 IPC. The appellate court affirmed the conviction in Crl.A. No.533 of 2012. The revision petitioner, represented by counsel, argues that the order accepting the guilty plea and the resulting conviction were not legally sound. The High Court examined CrPC provisions relating to warrant-case trials (Sections 239-241) and the validity of a plea of guilty, emphasizing that such a plea must be clear, unambiguous, and the accused must understand the facts and ingredients of the offence. It cited State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh and Santhosh v. State of Kerala to illustrate necessary cautions and permissible procedures. Ultimately, the High Court found no reason to interfere, dismissed the revision petition, and held the plea voluntary; the petitioner is entitled to a set-off for detention.
CRL.M.C NO. 2284 OF 2021; CRL.M.C NO. 1661 OF 2021; CRL.M.C NO. 1701 OF 2021; CRL.M.C NO. 2737 OF 2021 These are consolidated Criminal Miscellaneous Cases under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad, cancelling the bail of accused No.6 and issuing non‑bailable warrants against several accused in connection with Crime No.21/2020 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur. The events occurred on 18 January 2020 at the residence of the wife of CW1 Muhammed Faizy; nine accused allegedly trespassed, assaulted and caused injuries to the deceased, who died on 24 January 2020. The FIR registered on 19 January 2020 included offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 323, 324, 326, 506 read with 149, and later Section 302 was added after death. The final report was laid in November 2020 and the Magistrate took cognizance as CP 1/2021, issuing summons to all. The 6th accused appeared and was granted bail; others were absconding. The prosecution moved to cancel bail in February 2021 citing grave nature and potential witness influence; NBWs followed. The petitioners contend the Magistrate acted mechanically and that admission of summons suffices to trigger bail, especially after a charge-sheet, citing conflicting Kerala High Court opinions (Sreekumar, George, Sujatha) and Suresh M.R. The State argues for custodial restraint due to gravity and absconding. The High Court, relying on Aman Preet Singh and Siddarth (SC), holds that the Magistrate should grant bail on summons and that cancellation of bail requires cogent reasons. Consequently, Annexure-A6 is quashed, NBWs set aside, and all CRL.M Cs are allowed, with liberty to file fresh bail applications with conditions.
This petition challenges the order/judgment in SC No.131/2020, arising from Crime No.388/2019 of Mukkam Police Station, registered for offences under IPC Section 376 and POCSO Act Sections 5(j)(ii) r/w 6. The petitioner, XXX X, contends that she and the defacto complainant were in a three-year love relationship, during which the complainant was a minor (16 years old) at the time of the alleged incident. A pregnancy was detected on 03.07.2019. Subsequently, the petitioner and the complainant married after she attained majority (06.01.2021 marriage certificate; Annexure A3), and a child was born. The hospital reportedly informed authorities about the pregnancy, leading to the FIR and final report. The petitioner argues lack of criminal intent and asserts that continuing the criminal proceedings would harm their peaceful marital life. The petition relies on precedents including Mohammed Rasal v. State of Kerala and Unni.A. v. State of Kerala, and Denu P. Thampi, to contend that when a couple, having conceived, later marries and leads a stable life, quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C is appropriate. The court, referencing these authorities, finds it just and proper to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner, observing that quashing serves complete justice and safeguards the couple’s marital life. The CRL.M.C. is accordingly allowed.
WP(C) Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023 The petitions concern a dispute over Devaswom land attached to the Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB). Petitioners, devotees of the temple, challenged encroachments into a 12.19-acre Devaswom land at Kottuvalli/Kottuvalli Village, contending that encroachments by the 4th respondent (Rajendran) reduced the temple’s possession to about 1.40 acres and sought mandamus relief to remove encroachments and demolish a boundary wall obstructing ritual practices. The court traced the legal framework protecting temple properties, citing Supreme Court and Kerala authorities that the Devaswom’s assets are safeguarded by trustees and courts in the guardianship of the deity, invoking parens patriae. The petitions also invoked public interest directions from the Supreme Court’s Mrinalini Padhi order (2018) directing governance of shrines and related PIL mechanisms, while recognizing that remedies under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the CPC procedures may apply. The court directed a pragmatic resolution, allowing the ongoing temple rituals to continue, and ordered the Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy) to complete a survey and identify boundaries within three months, with notices to affected parties and status quo to continue. It also directed archival and Ombudsman involvement to facilitate records and reporting. The consolidated orders emphasize survey-based demarcation, protection of temple property, and timely judicial oversight.
WP(C) Nos. 17275 & 17285 of 2022 These consolidated writ petitions challenge notices from the Excise Department issued to liquor-outlet entities in the run-up to the Thrikkakara by-election (31 May 2022 polling; 3 June 2022 counting). The petitioners are hotels, beer and wine parlours, and tourist homes — located both inside and outside the Thrikkakara constituency — who contend that the Election Commission’s directive to declare a 48-hour “dry day” before polling, and a counting-day dry day, should not automatically apply to them if they operate beyond the constituency’s territorial limits. They acknowledge that the counting-day restriction would apply to them, but dispute applicability of the 48-hour dry day to outlets outside Thrikkakara. The respondents, including the State Taxes Department, the Excise Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, the Circle Inspector of Excise, and the Chief Electoral Officer, submit that the directives are designed to ensure free and fair elections and that the counting venue (Maharajas College Auditorium in Ernakulam) necessitates a broader application of the dry-day regime. The High Court recognizes the laudable aims of the directives but focuses on territorial scope, noting EC clarification that counting-day restrictions extend to the counting area as well. The court disposes of the petitions with directions to enforce EC directives: Thrikkakara outlets must close from 6:00 PM on 29 May 2022 to 6:00 PM on 31 May 2022, and all liquor outlets in Ernakulam must remain closed on 3 June 2022 for 24 hours; notices to be issued accordingly and enforcement to be ensured without waiting for a certified copy of the judgment. The decision cites the principle from Raju P.P. and others for extending dry-day restrictions to adjacent wards/areas when the polling area crosses ward boundaries.
This writ appeal challenges a solitary vacancy appointment for the post of Assistant Professor in Philosophy at the University of Kerala. The University invited candidates under UGC Regulations 2010 and 2009, mandating NET unless the Ph.D exemption under Clause 5(ii) of the notification applies. Clause 5(ii) required applicants who had registered for a Ph.D. before 11 July 2009 to furnish a certificate from university authorities certifying conditions including regular mode, external examiners, viva voce, two publications, and two conference presentations. The petitioner and the second respondent competed for the single opening; the second respondent was selected with 55 marks against the petitioner’s 45. The petitioner contends he deserved higher marks for publications (including journal articles and books) and additional teaching experience, and that the second respondent did not validly meet the exemption from NET because the certificate was not produced with the application, nor was Ext.R2(m) certificate issued before the last date. The University maintains Ext.R2(l) complies with Clause 5(ii) and Ext.R2(m) demonstrates Ph.D. sufficiency as on the application date. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition for lack of maintainability since others with higher marks were not impleaded. On appeal, the court discusses ranking, maintainability, and locus standi, citing Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia and Vishal Ashok Thorat. The Division Bench ultimately holds the writ appeal devoid of merit, upholding the ranking-based appointment and dismissing the challenge, with the second respondent’s appointment intact.
WP(C).No. 30680 of 2016 (H) Kaipparambu Panchayat Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., a registered society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, sought sanction under Rule 54 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules to invest funds and incur expenditure for establishing a new Neethi Super Market at Peramangalam, including a lease of premises and interior works. The Society paid an advance of Rs. 2,00,000 and awarded interior works totaling about Rs. 28,97,860, in anticipation of sanction. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, exercising powers under the Act, refused sanction (Ext. P2) citing lack of prior sanction for the proposed super market, improper leasing terms, single-publication tendering, and insufficient funds (fluid resources of Rs. 29,44,407). The Society appealed to the Minister (Ext. P3), and proceeded to inaugurate the market on 9.9.2016 despite Ext. P2. On 8.9.2016, the Assistant Registrar issued Ext. P4 under Section 66A of the Act directing the Society to refrain from opening. The petitioner challenged Ext. P4, and the Court held that the Assistant Registrar had no authority to issue Ext. P4. However, it did not quash the order; instead, it directed the Government to treat Ext. P3 as an appeal under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act and decide merits within six weeks, after hearing the petitioner. The judgment reiterates the Act’s protective aim for members and the necessity of acting within bye-laws. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
W.A. Nos 205, 206, 210, 218, 219 & 226 of 2021 The Kerala High Court confronted a multi-appeal batch arising from the appointment of the Administrative Head/Principal at Karavaram Vocational Higher Secondary School, Trivandrum. The vacancy arose on 1 June 2020, and there is no statutory rule prescribing eligibility for Principal of a Vocational Higher Secondary School. Government Orders issued in 2012 (G.O. MS 18/2012) provisionally assigned the administrative responsibility of the Vocational section to the senior-most teacher in VHSE who would also teach, with a special allowance, and with the Academic Head’s Rs 500 monthly allowance phased out. The central dispute concerned seniority: whether it should be computed from the date of entry into service when no continuous-service rule exists, and how a period of leave without allowance affects seniority. The court relied on the 2012 order and on general principles of seniority, citing Nirmala Devi v. State of Kerala (2009 KHC 1340) to affirm seniority based on entry date and to treat leave without allowance as not erasing prior seniority. It held that Priyadarsini S., being the senior one relative to Hariharan Pillai and Sindhu B. in terms of entry date for the vacancy post after 1/6/2020, is entitled to be appointed as Principal. The impugned orders are set aside; Priyadarsini shall be appointed forthwith, with inter-se disputes between Hariharan Pillai and Sindhu B. left open; the writ appeals are disposed accordingly.
