Nakshatra Bind A.K., a 15-year-old student, represented by her mother, filed this Kerala High Court writ petition seeking admission to Plus One in Kerala through the online Single Window portal. The background is that the Tamil Nadu board canceled the X Standard examinations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and issued provisional pass certificates to all examinees. The petitioner, having recently relocated from Tamil Nadu to Kozhikode, registered for Kerala higher secondary admission but could not complete the online application because the portal requires marks/grades, which Tamil Nadu did not provide on the provisional certificate. The petitioner produced Ext. P1 (Tamil Nadu provisional certificate) and Ext. P9 (high school marks records) to demonstrate merit, but the marks/grades were missing on the certificate; proceedings included Exts. P6–P12 representations and Ext. P12 application from a management quota seat. The petitioner argues that the right to education, derived from the right to life (as interpreted in Mohini Jain) and reinforced by the 86th Amendment elevating education to a fundamental right (Article 21A), requires the state of Kerala to facilitate admission despite missing marks, especially given her high performance and the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic. The respondents contend the Single Window system requires marks and that altering the software would delay admissions and prejudicially affect others. The court ultimately directs a pragmatic resolution: permit online or physical submission, treat the petitioner as having passed with a D+ grade for merit purposes, and preserve remedies in Tamil Nadu.
This Rent Control Revision arises from eviction orders under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlord obtained title to the petition schedule building and the tenant occupied it from 2010. The Rent Control Court held that the landlord's need for eviction was bonafide and decreed eviction. The Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, and the revision petition filed by the tenant before this Court was dismissed as well, though the arrears were found to be cleared for 11(2)(b) eviction. The tenant contends that the petition's bonafide need is tainted because the landlord possesses an alternative building nearby, including a recently constructed property leased to others in 2013, indicating lack of genuine need and suggesting suppression of facts. He invokes Bhargavi Amma P. v. K.P. Ajayakumar to argue that non-disclosure defeats bonafides. The Court, while acknowledging the factual debate, holds that the non-disclosure of another building is not automatically fatal to bonafides if the premises were not in vacant possession at the relevant time. The Court found that, on the counter statements, the landlord did not have vacant possession of another suitable building, and thus did not err in sustaining the eviction. Finally, the revision petition is dismissed, but the tenant is granted time until 31.11.2021 to vacate, with conditions: undertake to vacate, pay arrears and continue paying rent.
This bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., concerns the sole accused in SC No. 508 of 2020, Fast Track Special Court for the Trial of Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Cases, Kunnamkulam. The petitioner is charged under Section 376(2)(n) and (f) IPC and Section 506(i) IPC for allegedly raping his teenage daughter between December 2018 and August 2019, with the ensuing pregnancy reported to the police. The prosecution contends that the DNA report establishes paternity and warns that releasing the petitioner could enable intimidation of the survivor and tampering with witnesses, justifying denial of bail. The defense argues that the accused has been in custody since 01.12.2019, maintains the allegation is false, and contends bail should be granted in normal circumstances unless there are exceptional grounds such as flight or interference with evidence. The court reiterates bail principles from Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, emphasizing case-specific scrutiny, balancing public interest and individual liberty, and noting that genuine prima facie evidence is not required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt at the bail stage. It also cites Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar to underscore that detention alone does not mandate bail or denial thereof. Ultimately, due to grave allegations and likelihood of witness intimidation, the court拒 (dismisses) the bail petition. The matter is directed to expedite the trial with a forensic report expedited and remedies for delays to be instituted.
WP(C).No.11803 OF 2018(A) The petitioner, A.K. Jayasree, was working as a High School Assistant (Hindi) at St. George's Mount High School, Kaipattoor, Pathanamthitta, and challenges Exts. P7 and P10 which deny her an earlier promotion/appointment to the vacancy created in 1998. Her appointment had been approved from 07.10.1996, but a vacancy arose due to leave taken by Purushothaman Pillai on 01.06.1998, followed by his retirement on 01.07.1998. The petitioner contends that, as a Rule 43 claimant under Kerala Education Rules (KER), she was entitled to be appointed from 01.06.1998 to occupy the vacancy created by Pillai’s leave/retirement, but the authorities appointed her only from 01.07.1998. Respondents contend Pillai was on leave preparatory to retirement from 01.06.1998 and actually vacated the post only from 01.07.1998, so appointing from 01.06.1998 is incorrect. Kavitha V. Kurup, impleaded as R4, claims seniority and contests the petitioner’s claim. The court found that Exts. P7 and P10 were issued without hearing Kavitha Kurup and that the key issue—whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment from the date the leave began—had not been resolved. The judgment remands the matter for fresh consideration by the Secretary of the Government after hearing the petitioner, the Manager, and Kavitha Kurup, within two months, and declines to decide merits at this stage. The court also signals consideration of cited authorities without binding them to a verdict, preserving due process.
This is a Kerala High Court original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging Ext.P5, the Rent Control Court’s order dated 04.08.2021 in IA No.14 of 2021 in R.C.P. No.138 of 2015. Dost Motors, the tenant, seeks to defer eviction proceedings in R.C.P. No.138/2015 on the ground that the rent fixation petition in R.C.P. No.41/2018 under Section 5 of the same Act is pending and may determine the bona fide need and rent-related issues. The landlord filed eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, asserting arrears and bona fide need; a separate R.C.P. No.41/2018 seeks fair rent. The Rent Control Court refused deferral, holding these are separate proceedings. The High Court, citing Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil and Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair, emphasizes that Article 227 supervisory powers are limited and not a substitute for appellate review; interference is warranted only for manifest error or perverse reasoning. It affirms the Rent Control Court’s reasoning that the fixation petition and eviction petition are distinct and that deferral of eviction is unwarranted. Consequently, the petition is dismissed, and the eviction proceedings proceed without deferral, preserving administrative efficiency and public confidence in subordinate tribunals.
This writ appeal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 challenges a Maintenance Tribunal order that declared a gratuitous transfer void under Section 23(1) for allegedly failing to provide for basic maintenance of an aged parent. The appellant, then 82, claimed poverty and ill health, asserting that the sale deed No.1766/2009 transferring a portion of land to his son was procured by fraud and undue influence and did not embed an express maintenance obligation in the deed. The Tribunal found the deed void as a transactional instrument under Section 23 and ordered relief to the appellant. The High Court, in a Full Bench framework, examined whether Section 23(1) requires an express condition in the deed and whether Section 23 applies prospectively only to agreements executed after the Act came into force. It referred to Subhashini v. District Collector and a line of precedents, concluding that the condition must be expressly stated in the transfer document to invoke Section 23(1). The court also considered limitations issues under Section 14, Limitation Act, and whether excluding time spent in litigation should be left to a civil court. Ultimately, the writ appeal was disposed of, clarifying that reliance on Section 23(1) is not required here and that civil remedies may be pursued for challenges to the sale deed.
This writ petition (W.P.(C).No.15749/2021) is filed by 29 sixth-semester engineering students challenging the University’s offline examinations during the Covid-19 pandemic. The petition contends that the UGC, in its guidelines (Exhibit P2, July 2021), directed internal evaluation and consideration of the previous semester, and that forcing offline exams would contravene these guidelines, especially since the Supreme Court in Praneeth K. v. UGC (2020) held that UGC guidelines possess statutory force. The petition argues offline examinations would jeopardize students’ lives given the pandemic. The respondent University and government argue that Exhibit P2 is a truncated version of UGC guidelines and that AICTE/NCTE directives are to be considered; they contend that UGC guidelines are directory and not binding, and that 2020 guidelines permit university discretion after evaluating preparedness, local Covid conditions, and other factors. The Division Bench had previously indicated the matter for 1st and 3rd semester examinations only. The Court finds that Exhibit P2 aligns with the 2020 guidelines to the extent that universities may decide on modes of assessment subject to apex body advisories. It holds that offline examinations can proceed with strict Covid protocols, and students unable to attend due to Covid will be dealt with appropriately. The judgment emphasizes safety, discretion for universities, and the need for precautionary measures during examination conduct.
This writ petition filed by the Managing Committee of the Pala Marketing Co-operative Society Limited challenges proceedings initiated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, including a Section 65 enquiry and subsequent Section 68 surcharge action against individuals associated with the Society. The Joint Registrar ordered an enquiry under Section 65 after finding it necessary to probe the constitution, functioning and finances, leading to Exhibit P2. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Registrar initiated further action by passing an order to investigate the conduct of persons named in the report and to complete the enquiry within two months, which precipitated Exhibit P5 and subsequent government orders. The petitioner challenged these steps, arguing non-compliance with Rule 66 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, exceeding the scope of the enquiry, and denial of due process and hearing. Respondents countered that the Section 65 report was comprehensive, the society’s finances reveal serious irregularities, and the prescribed statutory remedies under Section 68(1) and (2) were properly initiated with opportunities for hearing as required by law. The High Court held that while interfering at the notice stage is limited, there must be a fair opportunity to be heard before any action under Section 68(2) is taken, and that the Registrar’s satisfaction must be grounded on material. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed with a direction to conclude the proceedings within two months of the judgment.
Anandhu, the third accused in Crime No. 127/2025 of Chavara Thekkumbhagam Police Station, Kollam, seeks bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The incident reportedly occurred on 27 January 2025 at around 3:00 pm when the defacto complainant and his brother were traveling on a scooter; accused Nos. 1 to 4 intercepted them, hit the complainant with a stone, and threatened him by brandishing a sword. It is further alleged that one of the accused threw explosive substances, aiming at the complainant, causing grave injuries to both the complainant and his brother. The offences charged include Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 115(2), 109, 351(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sec.27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sec.3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The petitioner contends that the case is false and expresses willingness to comply with stringent bail conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing criminal antecedents. The court acknowledges two versions and notes that the petitioner’s overt act is comparatively less than that of others. It reiterates the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram, Siddharth, Joginder Kumar and other authorities. The bail application is allowed with conditions: appear before the IO within two weeks for interrogation; if the IO proposes arrest, release on bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties; appearance before the IO as required; not leaving India without court’s permission; not committing similar offences; appear before the IO every Monday at 10 am until final report; and the jurisdictional court may cancel bail if conditions are violated, with recovery on information furnished by the petitioner. The order notes that the principles in Anzar Azeez are applicable to this case.
RP 474/25; OP(C) No.631 of 2025, High Court of Kerala This is a Kerala High Court review petition (RP 474/25) arising from EP/01/KOB/2024 and O.P.(C.) No.631 of 2025 between members of the Gupta family and related corporate entities. The review petitioners, Sulochana Gupta and Minakshi Gupta, sought to challenge orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and its appellate outcomes, including a remand and directions consequent to related party transactions alleged to violate the Companies Act and the Articles of Association. The matter traces through a backdrop of Supreme Court interventions in CA Nos. 4277–4279/2023 and 4586–4589/2023, where mediation was appointed to settle a family-dispute related corporate dispute and a stay of certain proceedings was considered. The petitioners were not served in the O.P.(C.), resulting in an ex parte judgment on 20.03.2025. They contend the impugned orders fall foul of the constitutional remedy under Article 227 and the statutory remedy under the Companies Act, and that Ext. P11 (NCLT order) requires reconsideration. The Kerala High Court, after hearing both sides, concluded there is no error apparent on the face of the record and that the review petition lacks the jurisdictional basis to function as an appeal, ultimately dismissing the petition. The judgment underscores the limited scope of review and adherence to established principles that review is not an inherent power or an avenue for re‑arguing merits.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5062 OF 2025 This is a Kerala High Court bail application (BAIL APPL. NO. 5062 OF 2025) by Linshad, the first accused in Crime No.141/2025 of Vidura (Vithura) Police Station, under sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, arguing that he has been in custody since 15.02.2025 and that the quantity of ganja seized (1.032 kg) falls within the intermediate category, with no criminal antecedents per the IO report. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but admitted the absence of antecedents relating to the NDPS offense. The court observed that the quantity is intermediate and, accordingly, Section 37 NDPS is not attracted. Noting the absence of antecedents and the ongoing custody, the court concluded that bail could be granted with stringent conditions. The judgment repeatedly cites leading authorities reinforcing the bail principle: that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that courts should decide bail cases in accordance with law. It references Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 SCALE 870), Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 KHC 6431), Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426), and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260). Ultimately, the application is allowed with conditions aimed at safeguarding fair trial and orderly investigation.
This CRL.MC NO. 1500/2025 before the Kerala High Court concerns quashing of Crime No. 655/2024 of Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam, under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, sections 351(2), 296(b) and 3(5). The petitioners, Nizar C.A and Rajesh Kumar J, sought to invoke the court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the entire proceedings on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the de facto complainant, Molly (2nd respondent). The defacto complainant supplied an affidavit declaring that the disputes were settled out of court, that she bears no grievance, and that she has no objection to quashing the case. The court recorded that she is disinterested to proceed and that the settlement is genuine and bonafide. Citing Kulwinder Singh (2007) 4 CTC 769, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, and Madan Mohan Abbot (2008) 4 SCC 582, the court explained the evolving policy that offences involving personal disputes may be quashed where the settlement is voluntary and fair. The court found the settlement satisfies the necessary parameters, concluded continued proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court, and that the offence under Section 351(2) is compoundable. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. was allowed and the FIR and subsequent proceedings were quashed.
CRL.M.C Nos.1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025 This is a common Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, order by Justice C. Jayachandran in two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (CRL.M.C. Nos. 1303 of 2024 and 940 of 2025) arising from Crime No. 1358/2021 of Karamana Police Station and CC No. 96/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitions, filed by three accused (Arun S J, Varun Rajarangan, and Sas i A) against the State and the defacto complainant Akhila, seek quashing of the FIR and further proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The offences alleged include sections 201, 294(b), 323, 354, 447, 506 and 34 IPC. The court records that on 05.02.2025 the defacto complainant and injured settled their disputes in mediation arranged by the High Court, and that an affidavit by the defacto complainant states no objection to quashing. Relying on the precedents Kulwinder Singh, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Madan Mohan Abbot, the court holds that the settled disputes, coupled with the fact that some offences are compoundable (323, 447, 506), justify quashing in the interests of ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process. Consequently, FIR No. 1358/2021, the final report, and all further proceedings in CC No. 96/2022 are quashed. The order is a common decision in both CRL.M.Cs.
BA 5204/2025; BA 5206/2025 Two connected bail petitions, BA Nos.5204/2025 and 5206/2025, were heard by a single judge of the Kerala High Court (P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.) at Ernakulam/Kasaragod. The petitioner, Muhammed Noushad A.T, faced two FIRs: Crime No.415/2024 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences under IPC 420 and IT Act Section 66D, and Crime No.10/2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Kasaragod, alleging offences under IPC 420 and BNSS 318(4) r/w 3(5). The prosecution contends large-scale online fraud and a job-misrepresentation scheme that allegedly defrauded the complainant of Rs. 2,64,000; the job scheme was offered via WhatsApp/Telegram, while the other crime relates to impersonating Mumbai Police officers to extract money. The Court had previously declined bail but granted liberty to renew after four weeks; the present order disposes of both applications together. The court reiterates the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram and Kerala authorities (Jalaluddin Khan, Manish Sisodia), and emphasizes the accused’s detention duration and the possibility of imposing stringent conditions. It concludes that bail can be granted with conditions, including bonds, two sureties, appearance, cooperation, and travel restrictions. The ruling also relies on Anzar Azeez to justify the approach, with a caveat that breaches may lead to cancellation by the jurisdictional court.
This is a motor-accident compensation appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Kerala High Court. The appellant, Majeed Hameed Rawther, challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara’s quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. (MV) No. 321/2009 for injuries sustained in a road accident on 04 March 2008 when he was riding a motorcycle. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded Rs. 4,30,025 in total compensation. The appellant contends that the quantum is inadequate and disputes the income fixation and some heads of loss, while the insurer disputes negligence and argues that the Tribunal’s figures should stand. The High Court analyzes several issues: the income of the injured person, disability, and future prospects head. It relies on Ramachandrappa to justify notional income for a driver, finding that reliable evidence of overseas earnings was not proved, and fixes notional monthly income at Rs. 9,000 for calculation of loss of earning and disability. The Court accepts a 15% permanent disability and applies 25% addition for future prospects per Pranay Sethi and a multiplier of 14 per Sarla Verma. It enhances the awards for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and related heads, culminating in a total of Rs. 7,33,965. The appeal is allowed in part with directions to deposit the enhanced amount within two months at 8% interest.
On 27 March 2025, the Kerala High Court heard B.A.No.3798 of 2025 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) concerning five petitioners accused in Crime No.186/2025 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasaragod, lodged with offences including sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 118(1), 324(3) and 110 r/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petition challenges the order or its continuation at bail stage, asserting that even if the allegations are assumed true, the offences do not attract, and emphasizing a counter-case scenario since Crime No.185/2025 was registered earlier involving some of the same persons/parties. The prosecution reports no criminal antecedents against the petitioner, but the offences alleged are serious and could impact the integrity of the investigation and trial. Counsel for the petitioners argues for bail, offering to comply with stringent conditions; the Public Prosecutor opposes or seeks to balance. The court, applying well-established bail jurisprudence, notes that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that arrest is not automatic merely because a power exists. Relying on Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v State of UP, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia v CBI, and Sushila Aggarwal, the court determines that a grant of bail with safeguards is appropriate given two competing versions. The order directs interrogation within two weeks, bond and sureties, appearance, travel restrictions, and compliance with conditions; bail to be guided by Sushila Aggarwal’s principles. Signed by P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5225 OF 2025 Thomas John, the petitioner, is an accused in Mundakayam Police Station Crime No. 424/2024/2025, registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC for allegedly duping the de facto complainant by promising a UK visa and job, which were not provided and for which the amount was not refunded. The bail application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before the Kerala High Court. Hearing on 11 April 2025, the petitioner contended that he has been in custody since 03 February 2025 and, though the allegations are serious, indefinite incarceration is unwarranted, and he is prepared to comply with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The court noted the gravity of the charges but reiterated the well-established principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing higher court precedents that emphasize fair trial under Article 21. It relied on Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 SCALE 870), Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 KHC 6431), Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426), and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine) to support bail in appropriate cases, even with stringent conditions. The court ultimately allowed the bail application with conditions: Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, no inducement to witnesses, travel restrictions without permission, no similar offences, and observation that the order is only for deciding this bail petition. The decision underscores the right to fair trial under Article 21 while preserving investigative integrity.
This is an appeal under MACA No. 1798/2019 from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, challenging an award in O.P.(MV) No.316 of 2017. The petitioner Kochugovindan, a pillion rider injured on 26 January 2015, contends the Tribunal held the accident was caused by negligence of the 2nd respondent and awarded Rs 1,09,663 in total compensation, with the 3 respondents jointly and severally liable along with the insurer. He argues that the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs 7,000 largely due to lack of evidence, though he was 56 and had been employed in a private school after retirement. Relying on the principles in Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, he contends that a notional income around Rs 4,500 with incremental increases would be appropriate and that by 2015 the notional income could be about Rs 10,000. Exhibit A12 shows 12% whole-body disability, and though the doctor was not examined, it should not be automatically rejected (per Raj Kumar). The court also considers the future-prospects doctrine from Pranay Sethi and Jagdish v. Mohan, allowing a 10% addition for self-employed individuals in the 50–60 age bracket. The appellant seeks enhanced compensation; the court ultimately allows the appeal and awards enhanced compensation after recalculation (Rs 1,32,320 additional) with 9% interest and costs.
This writ appeal arises from a writ petition challenging Exhibit P3, a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, and seeking permission to clear the loan account through an One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme. The petitioner asserts that he has remitted Rs. 33 lakhs and is willing to settle the remaining balance via OTS if granted. He contends Ext.P2 (OTS application) was not considered properly and that the Covid-19–related financial crisis warrants favorable consideration of his request. In the writ petition, the bank argued that a loan of Rs.68 lakhs was sanctioned in 2014; due to default, a notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI was issued on 04.10.2017; possession proceedings under Section 14 were instituted, and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed; the possession was delayed due to obstruction by the petitioner and a tenant, and steps before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (including Securitisation Applications) were initiated and rejected. The learned Single Judge held that Ext.P2 had already been decided and that the challenge to Ext.P3 could not be entertained in writ jurisdiction. Relying on Supreme Court authorities, the court held that writ petitions under SARFAESI should not be entertained where a statutory remedy exists and that public money should not be blocked by frivolous litigation. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the writ petition’s outcome.
WP(C).Nos.27057/19 & 18813/20 This joint writ petition concerns the Kerala Agricultural University's method of filling Class IV posts through a 50:50 split between direct recruitment and appointment from permanent labourers/plantation workers, with additional posts carved out for compassionate/die-in-harness appointments. Petitioners in WP(C)27057/2019 (Vinu S., Dhanesh K.G., Priyesh N.P.) contend they are in the Exhibit P1 ranked list and are entitled to appointment against 50% of vacancies, arguing the quota must be applied against cadre strength and that compassionate appointments must be carved out from the total before applying the ratio, following the Full Bench ruling in State of Kerala v. Sreekantan (1993 (1) KLT 107). WP(C)18813/2020 (R. Chandran, P. Jayaprakash) seeks relief for casual workers who have undergone due process of selection. Respondents acknowledge a cadre strength of 271 and that 36 die-in-harness/compassionate appointments have been made, intended to be adjusted against the direct recruitment quota. The court refers to the Sreekantan principle that a fixed quota for multiple methods should be carved out from the total posts, and concludes that after deducting the compassionate posts, the remaining 235 posts should be divided 1:1 between direct recruitment and the other list. Accordingly, appointments are to be made from the two lists in a 1:1 ratio, within three weeks.
