This suo motu petition concerns alleged malpractices during the counting of hundials in Sree Alathiyoor Perumthrikkovil Devaswom (Hanuman Kavu), a temple under the supervision of the Malabar Devaswom Board. The petition claims that Sri Sankara Varma, the Zamorins Central Devaswom Inspector, who supervises counting of the Bhandaram, stole high-denomination notes (Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 500) while the counting process involved removing sacks, emptying them onto a table, and re-filling them with notes. It is alleged he concealed notes in his pants and later diverted them during sorting with Note Sorting Machines. Petitioners also state threats to Devaswom staff by the Devaswom Executive Officer. The matter was registered suo motu and later expanded to implead the Zamorin Raja of Calicut (the hereditary trustee) as additional respondent and, subsequently, the Superintendent of Police as respondent. The court traces a prior public-interest framework on hundi opening laid down in O.P.631/1990 and subsequent directions (modified in 2004), emphasizing openness, witness participation, mahazar documentation, and CCTV surveillance. The judgment ultimately directs strict adherence to these established procedures and warrants disciplinary action for violations, while continuing the supervisory role of CCTV and board oversight to restore devotees’ confidence.
O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 This Kerala High Court judgment concerns OP(KAT) No. 307 of 2021 (O.A. No. 1534/2021 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram) challenging the Tribunal’s final order directing the Department to consider representations for promotion from Lascars to Boat Masters. The petitioners—nine Lascar employees from multiple depots—allege that the Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of their promotion grievance and instead confined itself to directing consideration of representations. They contend that Ext.P-4, the Kerala State Water Transport Subordinate Service (Operating Wing) Special Rules (1975), prescribe a recruitment ratio of 4:1 for direct recruitment and promotion to the Boat Masters cadre, which must be applied to the cadre strength (160 posts) rather than to vacancies arising at a particular time. The respondents counter that the 4:1 ratio must be computed against arising vacancies, with the cadre’s 160 posts yielding a 122 direct recruitment and 31 promotion target for the time being, given that only 153 posts are deemed functional. The court surveys general and special rules (KS & SSR Part II Rule 5 with Note (3), Rule 2, and Rule 27(c)) and apex court precedents (S. Prakash, Prasad Kurien, Maya Mathew) to resolve a conflict between universal rules and service-specific rules. It ultimately holds that Note (3) prevails, applies the 4:1 ratio to cadre strength, and directs immediate promotion action, with detailed post-occupancy targets and safeguards (including temporary promotions if necessary) to be completed within two months, while ensuring promotions do not exceed the 153-post threshold. The decision also flags that non-finalization of the final seniority list will not delay compliance. The judgment clarifies the tribunal’s order and imposes specific fill-up targets while not exceeding cadre strength.
This writ petition (WP(C) 6912 of 2023) filed in the Kerala High Court by Yeshwanth Shenoy, a practicing advocate (self-represented), challenges the listing and rostering practices of the High Court. The petitioner contends that the Chief Justice, as Master of the Roster, has failed to ensure a transparent and efficient listing system. He seeks mandamus directing the Registrar General to adopt a standard criterion for listing and insists on a minimum daily disposal target (a minimum of 50 matters in addition to a final disposal list) to uphold the right to speedy justice under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner argues that the 3rd respondent’s court allegedly lists only 20 matters daily, relying on a Facebook post and various statements, and claims this breaches Articles 14 and 21. He also asks for a tracking mechanism to monitor daily hearings and disposals to evaluate judge performance, invoking precedents like M.K. Surendrababu v. Kodungallur Town Co-Op Bank Ltd (2022 Ker 65066) and State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) to support his demand for reform. The respondents contend that the High Court Rules, 1971 (Chapter VIII) govern posting/listing, with Article 225 and Rule 92 establishing the Chief Justice as Master of the Roster. They submit the petition is not maintainable, as no mandamus to alter the roster can be issued against rule-making authorities, and urge dismissal with costs. The Court ultimately dismisses the petition, holding it not maintainable and frivolous, and imposes heavy costs, while directing recourse to established grievance mechanisms.
The petitioner, C. J. Sarasamma, a retired Laboratory Assistant from NSS College, Pandalam (an aided institution affiliated to Kerala University), challenges Ext.P4 (issued by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education) cancelling her 27-year Time-Bound-Higher Grade (TBHG) and Ext.P6 (college order seeking recovery of excess amounts). She had earlier been granted a 22-year TBHG in 2009 and a 27-year TBHG in 2014, both with approval by the 1st respondent, and retired on 31.03.2015. The petitioner argues these TBHGs were validly sanctioned and that Ext.P4, issued nearly three years after retirement, is illegal and in conflict with the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334. The College contends that the 27-year TBHG could not be reckoned using Last Grade service and argues Ext.R2(c) and Ext.R2(d) show valid sanction, while Ext.P4 merely seeks to correct an earlier misstep and enable recovery. The Government Pleader relies on the Rafiq Masih principle but acknowledges the need to address the petitioner’s fixation and pension. The High Court ultimately sets aside Ext.P4 and the consequential Ext.P6, directing re-fixation of salary and pension in light of Exts.R2(c) and R2(d) within four months.
The appellants — mother and siblings of Sajad — approached the Kerala High Court challenging an MACT award in OP(MV) No.239/2007, which had granted Rs.6,80,500 as compensation for the death of a 26-year-old motorcyclist in a road accident involving a KSRTC bus in 2006. The High Court scrutinizes the compensation structure: notional income, future prospects, and heads such as loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in accepting a notional income as low as Rs.4,000, while Exts A6–A9 show a last drawn salary of Rs.5,250; they contend 40% future prospects should be added under the Pranay Sethi framework. They also pressed for higher awards for loss of love/affection, and loss of consortium, and contested the Tribunal’s finding of 50% contributory negligence by the deceased. KSRTC contended the deceased rode rashly and negligently to overtake the bus, supported by Ext.A52 and other evidence. The High Court, applying Ramchandrappa to fix a higher minimum income, and Pranay Sethi/Sarala Verma guidance on future prospects and deductions, held that the contributory negligence finding was unsustainable and partially allowed the appeal by enhancing several heads and deleting the love/affection head, while reducing the liability and directing payment of enhanced sums with interest.
The Kerala High Court hearing Crl.A. No.112/2016, arises from the conviction under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act by the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod (SC No.455/2010). The appellant, A. Haris, was apprehended near Kasaragod railway station on 22 April 2009 with 1.9 kg of ganja recovered in two packets, after a search conducted on information received. The trial court sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000, with default imprisonment. On appeal, the appellant argued several irregularities: (i) the search based on prior information lacked the mandatory Section 42 report to a superior officer; (ii) the search and seizure violated Section 50(1); (iii) independent witnesses were not examined; (iv) although two samples were drawn, only one was sent for chemical analysis; and (v) arrest procedure allegedly contravened D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal. The State defended the process, noting Ext. P7 (Section 42) was sent before the search, and the appellant had waived the right to be searched by a gazetted officer. The court found significant procedural gaps, including lack of a seal impression on the seizure mahazar and delayed sample seals and forwarding, which undermined chain-of-custody. Relying on Faijas’s case to illustrate the importance of seal integrity, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove proper procedure and link evidence, and acquitted the appellant. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and remittances and bail bonds discharged.
WP(C) Nos. 23186 of 2022 & connected cases These connected writ petitions challenge Government Order GO(M.S.) No.121/2022/G.Edn. dated 07/07/2022, which reduces the management quota for Plus One admissions in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala from 30% to 20% and introduces a 10% community quota for schools that declare the community to which they belong, with a merit-based admission for those community seats. The petitioners, Managers of Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools, contend that the policy violates constitutional guarantees (Articles 14 and 15) and prior Court judgments that restricted or prohibited management/community quotas, and that the Government cannot arbitrarily alter the long-standing 20%/30% split without vested rights. The State defends the policy as a corrective measure to curb malpractices, ensure merit-based admissions, and bring uniformity across government and aided institutions. The Court reviews the policy’s legality, its nexus to the object of equal opportunity and merit, and whether the 10% community quota is constitutionally valid or arbitrary. It upholds the 20% management quota, quashes the 10% community quota for being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15, and directs that the 10% seats be treated as open merit seats to be allotted through the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP). The decision also clarifies that admissions already made on declarations by management are not disturbed.
WP(C) Nos.34316/2022, 33413/2022, 34334/2022 The three connected writ petitions before the Kerala High Court arise from assessments for the 2020-21 year where the respective cooperatives claimed a deduction under Section 80P(ii)(d) of the Income Tax Act and were denied this deduction. The petitioners argued that the issue is governed by binding Supreme Court judgments, notably Peroorkada Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (442 ITR 141) and Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (431 ITR 1), which should guide the Assessing Officer’s determinations. The Department contends that a challenge to the assessment order lies through an appeal, not via a writ petition under Article 226, since the correct interpretation of deduction under 80P(ii)(d) depends on the facts of each case. The Court observed that the Supreme Court judgments in Mavilayi and Peroorkada were not considered while finalizing the challenged assessments, and relied on the Division Bench’s reasoning in Poonjar Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. to remand. Consequently, the petitions were allowed; the assessment orders (Ext. P1 in each case) were quashed and the matters remanded to the National Faceless Assessment Centre for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioners and applying the cited judgments. The court emphasized that ignoring binding Supreme Court precedents cannot be treated merely as subject to appellate remedy.
This is a rent control revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, challenging a judgment dated 01 March 2019 in RCA No.122/2016 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, which itself relates to an eviction order dated 16 January 2016 passed under Section 11(3) of the Act by the Rent Control Court, Thalassery. The petitioner-landlord claimed eviction on the ground of bona fide need to start a mobile phone business in the petition schedule premises, which had been let in 1980 for ₹120 per month. The RCC granted eviction; the RCAA reversed, setting aside the eviction on the ground that the landlord’s need appeared not bona fide, given the petitioner’s affluent profile. The revision sought to overturn the RCAA’s decision, arguing proper pleadings, appraisal of evidence, and adherence to law; the respondent tenant contended the need was not bona fide and a mere ruse to evict. The High Court emphasizes that revisional interference is limited to correcting perverse or improperly considered findings, not re-trying facts. Relying on precedents including Hindustan Petroleum, Sarla Ahuja, Bhagwati Prasad and Ram Sarup Gupta, the court holds that the pleadings and evidence sufficiently establish Section 11(3) grounds and reverses the RCAA. The revision is allowed; the RCC order is restored. The tenant is directed to vacate within one month. Interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
This MACA arises from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in O.P.(M.V.) No.1776/2008, Perumbavoor, concerning injuries sustained on 13.11.2008 when the claimant rode as pillion on a lorry. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded Rs.2,14,473, directing the insurer to pay. The appellant challenged the quantum, contending the notional income and heads of compensation were inadequately assessed. The insurer argued the Tribunal’s assessment was correct. The High Court, applying Supreme Court precedents, re-evaluated the compensation. It fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.6,500 (Ramachandrappa) for a coolie in 2008, added 40% for future prospects (Pranay Sethi), and applied a multiplier of 15. The petitioner’s permanent disability was assessed at 10%, resulting in Rs.163,800 for loss of disability. After re-computing, the High Court increased awards for loss of study (from Rs.14,000 to Rs.26,000), pain and suffering (from Rs.45,000 to Rs.60,000), and loss of amenities (from Rs.30,000 to Rs.50,000). The total compensation rose to Rs.3,62,273. The appeal was allowed in part; the 3rd respondent was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest at 8% per annum within two months, and the Tribunal was to disburse promptly. It noted the vehicle had no valid license or fitness certificate, and directed recovery of the amount if applicable.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal before the Kerala High Court arising from OP(MV) No. 444 of 2014 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, by Naseera T.K. (the claimant) for compensation for injuries sustained in a motor-vehicle accident on 17 October 2013. The Tribunal fixed the claimant’s notional income at Rs.12,000 per month and held the claimant to suffer 100% functional disability. It awarded substantial sums across several heads, including loss of earnings up to the appeal, lifelong physiotherapy, home-nurse care, and non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of marital and motherly duties, culminating in a total of Rs.1,16,14,850. The insurer challenged the quantum, relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Lalan D @ Lal, Sidram, Benson George, Jithendran, Kajal, Raj Kumar, and Sarla Verma to press for reductions. The claimant’s counsel urged that given the 100% disability, young age (22), motherhood, and lifelong dependence, higher compensation might be warranted. The Kerala High Court reappraised the award, applying the multiplier from Sarla Verma (18) and distinguishing some precedents, ultimately allowing the appeal in part, recalculating several heads, and awarding a consolidated Rs.1,02,61,450. It directs deposit within two months by the insurer and disbursement thereafter, emphasizing just compensation tailored to the claimant’s lifelong needs and age.”
MACA Nos. 751/2023; 675/2023; 685/2023; 726/2023; 776/2023 This Kerala High Court judgment consolidates five Motor Accidents Claims Appeals (MACAs) arising out of five original petitions challenging Tribunal orders. The core dispute is the liability of the insurer to indemnify the owner of a goods vehicle for injuries/deaths of passengers, including purported gratuitous passengers, and the scope of Section 147 under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in light of amendments and competing precedents. The Tribunal had initially fastened liability on the insurer with a right of recourse against the vehicle owner. The insurer argued that goods vehicles are not intended to carry passengers except those covered by Section 147, pre-1994 amendment, and that gratuitous passenger liability was not within the policy’s scope; post-1994 amendment changed the language to include the owner/authorized representative, expanding coverage. The court reviews the evolution of case law (Asha Rani, Saju P. Paul, Rijawana Jamshed Mulla, Baljit Kaur, Kaushalya Devi, Challa Upendra Rao, Roshan Lal, Parvathneni, Satpal Singh and others) to explain the distinction between initial and ultimate liability and the insurer’s duty under Section 150. The judgment ultimately dismisses the appeals, sustaining the Tribunal’s framework and the insurer’s obligations under the policy, while acknowledging unsettled points in law awaiting a larger judicial ruling.
Review Petition No.847 of 2022 This is a review petition (Review Petition No. 847 of 2022) filed in the Kerala High Court challenging the eviction order in RC Rev. No. 434 of 2017, under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Review petitioners Naseera, Faizal K.M., Abdul Nazer K.M., Muhammed Shafeeque K.M., Rabiya K.M., Fareeda K.M., and Mohamedali K.M. claim that the Rent Control Court’s order dated 23.03.2016 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority’s order relating to eviction under Section 11(3) were misapplied; they contend that the court’s consideration of a subsequent, vacant room (No. 1366) after the eviction petition was filed improperly shaped the outcome. They rely on jurisprudence dealing with the effect of post-filing events on the relief sought, including Rameshwar v. Jot Ram, Speed Line Agencies, and Riyas v. Mohammed Nazer, to argue that a subsequent vacancy should not derogate from the original bona fides of need. The respondent S.A. Sahitha, and Sri T.R. Harikum ar, counter that review under Order XLVII CPC is limited and that the court may examine post-event circumstances where they fundamentally affect the bona fide need. The court analyzes various apex court authorities, and ultimately holds that post-event developments can bear upon the relief claimed, but nonetheless dismisses the petition as lacking merit, upholding the eviction order. The bench comprises Division Bench judges Anil K. Narendran and P.G. Ajithkumar.
Sajil K.S., the 2nd accused in Crime No.1112/2022 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur, approaches the Kerala High Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail. The offences under the NDPS Act alleged against the three occupants of a Honda City are Sections 22(c), 22(b), and 20(B)(ii)A. On 05.09.2022 at 11.30 PM, all three were found travelling in the car; during body search, the 1st accused was found in possession of LSD (0.44 g) and Nitrazepam tablets (23.65 g); the 2nd accused had 6.50 g of ganja; the 3rd accused had 17.45 g of ganja. The contraband was seized and the petitioner has been in custody since arrest. The petitioner asserts innocence and contends that the contraband in commercial quantity was recovered from the 1st accused and that the 2nd accused possessed only small quantities or was not conscious of possession. He relies on Supreme Court rulings Amarsingh Barot, Nawaz Khan, and Mushaque Ahammed to urge bail should be available for small-quantity possession and for those not in conscious possession. The State submits that contraband was recovered from all accused and that the petitioner cannot escape the NDPS 37 rigor. The court, applying Nawaz Khan’s analysis of possession and the need for Section 37 scrutiny at trial, concludes that mere non-possession on the petitioner’s person does not absolve liability and that there is a prima facie case of transporting contraband in commercial quantity. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. The matter will be decided at trial; the judge notes that Mushaque and Amarsingh relate to conviction, not bail.”
This Regular Second Appeal challenges the partition proceedings rooted in the preliminary decree in O.S. No. 654 of 1995 and the final decree in I.A. No. 3950 of 1998, before the II Sub Court, Ernakulam, which culminated in an appellate decision and a later appeal to this High Court. Appellants 21, 22 and 25 (the defendants) sought to challenge the Advocate Commissioner’s partition report and plan, marked Exts. C1, C1(a)–(e), after objections were filed and petitions to set aside the commission report were dismissed. The trial court’s final decree in 2017 proceeded without allowing a challenge to those orders, prompting the appellants to file a first appeal, which was delayed by about 597 days. Their primary contention is that the delay be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, based on a detailed affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The respondents contend that the delay is inordinate and not properly explained, and the first appellate court correctly dismissed the condonation petition, thereby dismissing the appeal on that ground. The High Court, after considering the affidavits, arguments and the governing principles for condonation of delay, holds that a liberal, justice-oriented approach should be adopted, and that the delay should be condoned to prevent manifest injustice. The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court to decide A.S. No. 187 of 2019 on merits within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This intra-court writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 challenges the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.03.2023 in W.P.(C.) No.34094/2022, which directed a review of the suspension of Vijayakumar S., General Manager (Projects and Administration) of the DTPC and laid down timelines for subsequent action. The appellant contends that Exts.P2 (notice dated 22.10.2022) and Ext.P3 (dated 20.10.2022) merely state to place the petitioner away from work, but do not constitute an ordinary suspension under law, as no formal charge-sheet was served within the three-month window; therefore there was no valid suspension and reinstatement should be immediate. The petitioner seeks reinstatement from 25.10.2022 with full wages, challenging the 50% subsistence allowance paid, and contends there are no DTPC rules governing suspension and service conditions, so the general rule of full emoluments should apply (per R.P. Kapur). The respondents argue that Exts.P2/P3 reflect suspension and that the District Collector, as ex officio Chairperson of the DTPC, is the competent authority for such actions; the language used is a suspension in substance. The Division Bench ultimately modifies the Single Judge’s order, directing timely review and completion of disciplinary proceedings, and setting timelines while preserving the possibility of reinstatement, pending legal opinions on wage entitlements and applicability of Section 2(a) of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972.
Mat.Appeal No. 148 of 2014; Mat.Appeal No. 245 of 2014 These matrimonial appeals arise from OP(HMA) 1161/2013 in the Family Court, Attingal, where the husband filed for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) on grounds of matrimonial cruelty. The Family Court dismissed the petition for divorce but granted a decree for judicial separation, and, controversially, declared the husband to be the biological father of the child Neelina and awarded Rs. 10 lakh compensation to the child, despite the child not being a party. The husband (appellant in Mat.Appeal 148/2014) challenges the divorce dismissal, the DNA-based paternity finding, and the compensation, arguing that the DNA report was not properly examined and that relief outside pleadings cannot be granted. The wife (respondent in 148) cross-appeals in Mat.Appeal 245/2014 challenging the decree for judicial separation, contending that the family’s differences are not irreconcilable and that the court should not have granted separation as an alternative relief without valid grounds for divorce. The High Court conducts a careful appraisal of the evidence, including the DNA analysis Ext.C1, and engages doctrinal authorities on pleadings and pleadings-based relief. It holds that the Family Court erred in declaring paternity and awarding compensation without pleadings or statutory basis, and that, since no ground for divorce is made out, judicial separation cannot be granted as an alternate relief. Consequently, the appeals are disposed of with costs.
Mat.Appeal Nos. 668 of 2021; 169 of 2022; 721 of 2022 These matrimonial appeals arise from a common judgment of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in OP Nos. 223 and 224 of 2018. The husband filed OP 223/2018 seeking a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and OP 224/2018 for permanent custody of his minor children. The Family Court, by its judgment dated 29.09.2021, dissolved the marriage but dismissed OP 224/2018 on permanent custody while granting visitation rights to the father on Sundays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Aggrieved by the denial of permanent custody and by the visitation arrangement, the wife and the husband filed respective appeals (Mat.Appeal No.668 of 2021 and connected matters; Mat.Appeal No.169 of 2022). The court, after scrutiny and with the parties’ consent on a workable arrangement, modified the visitation schedule: custody exchanged at the Family Court premises to run from 5 p.m. on the Friday preceding the second Saturday of each month to 5 p.m. on the following Sunday; Onam, Christmas and summer holidays permit longer custody under agreed terms. The judgment cites irretrievable breakdown concepts, citing Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli to justify severance of marriage, and Beena v. Shino G. Babu to recognize cruelty as a possible consequence of incompatibility. In consequence, Mat.Appeal Nos.668 of 2021 and 169 of 2022 are disposed of, while Mat.Appeal No.721 of 2022 is dismissed, upholding the divorce decree. The order balances parental rights with child welfare and feasible logistics.
On 03.09.2015, the appellant Suresh P.B., traveling on a motorcycle, was injured when a bus driven rashly collided with his vehicle. He filed OP(MV) No. 476/2016 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thaliparamba, seeking Rs 10,00,000 as compensation, but the Tribunal awarded Rs 6,53,400. The appeal focuses on the proper determination of income for computing compensation, under the heads of Permanent Disability and Loss of Earnings. Counsel for the appellant contends that Ext.A8 Salary Certificate and Ext.X2 Muster Roll establish a monthly income of Rs 20,000; accordingly, the insurer should be liable for higher compensation. The insurer submits that there is no reliable evidence of actual earnings and that the Tribunal rightly adopted a notional income. The Tribunal had relied on the appellant’s basic salary of Rs 9,000 and treated additional payments as variable allowances or commission; it inferred that an Acquittance Register would be necessary to prove receipt of the full amounts, and without it, a higher figure could not be presumed. The High Court agrees that such ancillary payments require cogent proof but relies on Ramchandrappa (2011) to fix a minimum notional income; it also recognizes the appellant’s technical avocation as a basis for a somewhat higher figure per Rajani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Consequently, the Court fixes notional income at Rs 11,000 with 10% future prospects for a 30% disability, and partly allows the appeal: permanent disability compensation rises to Rs 6,96,960 and loss of earnings to Rs 55,000, with deposition of enhanced amounts within two months and continued entitlement to interest and costs.
WP(C) No. 33487/2010, 34526/2010, 35722/2010 These three connected writ petitions before the Kerala High Court challenge the regularisation and age-relaxation eligibility of temporary Messengers employed by North Malabar Gramin Bank, a Regional Rural Bank. The core issue is whether long-serving, temporary employees can be regularised as Group-C staff under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 and the Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010, despite age limits and lack of Employment Exchange sponsorship. The court notes the post is Group-C, to be filled by direct recruitment and that age relaxation is ordinarily limited by the rules, but emphasizes that the petitioners had been in service for years and some for over a decade. Citing Umadevi (One-time regularisation) the court accepts that regularisation may be permissible in appropriate circumstances. It recognises that interim orders in prior proceedings permitted provisional interviews and appointments, and that termination on grounds of over-age or non-qualification at a late stage would be unjust given decades of service. The bench holds that the petitioners in Ext.P11 are entitled to regularisation as Messengers and to consequential benefits, while excluding a few specific petitioners (as noted in the judgment). The orders extend to the connected petitions (34526/2010 and 35722/2010) with similar reliefs. The judgment disposes of all three petitions by a common order, directing the Bank to regularise the service and disburse benefits forthwith, while clarifying it does not set a broad precedent.
