RP 525/2021 in W.P.(C)530/2021 This Review Petition challenges the interim order dated 16.04.2021 in W.P.(C)530/2021, which directed the registration of Ext.P8 sale certificate under the SARFAESI Act, subject to the writ petition’s outcome. The sale of the mortgaged property, initially with the bank, was later assigned to M/S Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and put up for auction under Section 13 of SARFAESI after the loan account became NPA. The writ petitioner, an auction purchaser, sought registration of Ext.P8 despite a Rs.81,29,156 sales tax attachment (Ext.P4; Annexure A1). The Sub Registrar refused registration citing the attachment order, and the District Registrar dismissed the related appeal under Section 72 of the Kerala Registration Act, directing the writ petitioner to obtain clarifications from the Court. The petition argues that the statutory first charge for sales tax owed to the State (Sections 26B KGST and 38 KVAT) survives mortgage and, post-2016 amendments (Section 26E SARFAESI), the SARFAESI sale has precedence over government charges. The court discussed precedents including State Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Travancore Devaswom Board, concluding that the SARFAESI sale priority supersedes statutory charges and declined to review the interim order. The petition is dismissed with no costs, preserving the earlier order.”
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA) from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur. Vishnu P.S., the claimant, sustained injuries in a motor accident on 15.01.2015, leading to a permanent disability of 52% (as per Ext.X1) and a claimed compensation of Rs 40,00,000. The Tribunal held the insurer, National Insurance Co Ltd ( NIC ), liable and awarded Rs 28,18,111 with interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition. NIC challenged both liability and quantum, arguing that the disability assessment was inflated. The appellant contended that functional disability was overstated (70%) while Ext.X1 shows 52% physical disability, and that the higher functional disability is warranted only in cases of manual labour, which does not apply here since the claimant was an engineering student who continued studies post-accident. The respondent-counsel relied on Supreme Court precedents like Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, to justify a higher functional disability. The High Court distinguished those precedents, noting the peculiar facts (student, no proven part-time employment, non-manual labour) and fixed the disability at 52%, recalculating the compensation to Rs 24,74,791 after making deductions for excess amounts and adding head losses such as amenities and marriage prospects. The appeal was allowed, and the award modified accordingly, with a deposit timeline set.
On 18.08.2005 at around 7:00 a.m., the appellant Shelton Padua, riding scooter KL-7 AX-7610, allegedly was struck by a KSRTC bus KL-15/5246 driven rashly on NH 47 near Perambra, resulting in serious injuries. The claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor (OPMV 266/2006), seeking compensation for injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,82,836 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of application, against both respondents (the bus owner and the passenger-driver). The claimant challenged the award before the High Court praying for enhancement in heads such as disability, transportation, extra nourishment, attendance, and loss of amenities, while noting that earned leave and loss of pay had already been granted. The respondents denied liability, contending the accident did not involve the KSRTC bus and that the appellant was negligent in his own riding. The evidence included PW1–PW3 and Exhibits A1–A15, with the disability certificate Ext. A11 recording 22% permanent disability and a 63-day inpatient treatment. The High Court, applying Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (SC) and Ramachandrappa for notional income and assessment of earning capacity, held that the award did not adequately compensate for several heads and amounted to an overall under-compensation. The court recalculated and awarded a total enhanced sum of Rs. 92,850 with interest at 7.5%, directing payment within two months along with bank details. The appeal was allowed.
This MACA 2268 of 2012 arises from an appeal by Varghese (the petitioner in O.P(M.V) No.434 of 2005) before the Kerala High Court against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda order dismissing a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accident occurred on 06.11.2004, when the petitioner, riding a motorcycle, allegedly collided with another vehicle owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal held the petitioner negligent, relying on Ext. B1 and a decision in National Insurance Co. v. Sinitha, and dismissed the petition. The appellant contends that the insurer cannot raise negligence in a Section 163A proceeding, citing United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, which clarified that the 163A process is to deliver final compensation under a structured formula without adjudicating fault, and that relying on Sinitha’s view is incorrect post-Sunil Kumar. The Insurance Company pressed remand and argued that other aspects of the claim were not considered. The High Court, however, preferred to compute compensation under the Second Schedule, noting the accident was in 2004 and the medical evidence supports significant disability. It assesses 100% loss of earning capacity (per PW2) with a 14x multiplier (per Sarla Verma) and awards Rs.5,54,400 for loss of earning capacity, plus Rs.5,000 for pain and suffering and Rs.15,000 for medical expenses, totaling Rs.5,74,400 with 6% interest. The appeal is allowed as above, and the insurer is directed to deposit the amount within two months.
WP(C) Nos. 11640/2018; 24032/2018; 24046/2018 This batch of writ petitions challenges a common order dated 09 January 2018 by the first respondent that rejected the absorption or regularization of contract or limited term appointments in the National Centre for Aquatic Animal Health (NCAAH) and its related unit CFDDM. The petitioners include A. L. Soman (WP(C) 11640/2018), Blessy Jos (WP(C) 24032/2018), and Surya Sugunan (WP(C) 24046/2018). They were initially employed as Micro Biologists or Aquatic Animal Health Assistants under project or contractual terms, with appointments renewed for a three-year period starting January 2017. They filed the petitions seeking regularization or absorption, arguing that they rendered years of service in indispensable posts and that regularization is permissible under Supreme Court and Kerala High Court jurisprudence, notably the Uma Devi doctrine which recognizes one time regularization in appropriate cases. The respondents maintained that the posts were not sanctioned permanent posts and that absorption would undermine statutory recruitment and PSC rules. The court, while acknowledging the broader regularization discourse, held that these posts were project based and not sanctioned posts; Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab was distinguished, and the petitions were dismissed, thereby upholding the impugned non-absorption decision. The matter thus ends with the writ petitions being disposed of in favor of the respondents.
A batch of eight Original Petitions (OP (CAT) Nos. 65, 67, 68, 71, 73, 84, 94 & 95 of 2023) challenged a common CAT Ernakulam Tribunal order dated 1 November 2022, which dismissed their OA pleas seeking revision of retiral benefits to include an annual increment that had accrued before retirement. The petitioners, retired government employees from diverse Central services, contended that annual increments are earned for a period of service with good conduct, and under the relevant rules (including CCS (Pension) Rules and the revised pay rules post-VII CPC) the increment should be granted on retirement if earned, even if the employee is not in service on the due date. The respondents argued that the increment accrues on the specified payment date and that retirement before that date should bar such benefit, relying on Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations (1997) and the Fundamental Rules, which use terms like “drawn” and “accrues.” The Kerala High Court, by a two-judge bench, applied a purposive interpretation and held that denying an earned benefit would be arbitrary and unreasonable, aligning with Supreme Court precedents (Director (Admn. & HR) KPTCL v. Mundinamani and others) and the judgments of Allahabad, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and Madras High Courts. It distinguished contrary lines from Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Himachal Pradesh High Courts and allowed the petitions, directing a notional increment and revision of retiral benefits within two months.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC, filed by five accused challenging Crime No. 70 of 2023 of Pandalam Police Station. Accused Nos. 1–5 are charged for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, and 308 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 18 January 2023, around 11 a.m., in furtherance of their common intention, the petitioners restrained the complainant and attacked him with an iron rod, causing injuries. The petition asserts an amicable settlement between the parties, supported by Annexure A2 (the injured/de facto complainant’s affidavit) and Annexure A1 (FIR) true copy, that the disputes have been resolved and that quashing would restore peace and allow them to move forward. The Public Prosecutor raises reservations about quashing solely on settlement but notes no other recorded criminal antecedents. The court examines precedents, including Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and others, to delineate the scope of Section 482 CrPC in quashing non‑compoundable offences where disputes are private in nature and have been resolved, while excluding heinous offences and certain statutory offences from quashability. The judge ultimately finds that the private settlement, lack of ongoing grievances, and the ends of justice justify quashing, and accordingly quashes the FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioners.
The petitioner Balakrishnan V.P., a retiree from Government Printing, challenged the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) order dated 13.02.2020 in OA No.630/2017 which quashed Annexures A3 (departmental rejection) and A6 (State Government rejection) and directed consideration of a re-option under para 3(iii) of Annexure A5 GO No.8/2012 (dated 05.01.2012) in the context of pay fixation for the 2004 pay revision. The applicant sought to strike down para 4(v) of Annexure A5 GO as discriminatory under Article 14, and to direct re-option for pay revision, arguing that audit objections raised in 2015 (nine years after the initial option) were belated and should permit correction. The Tribunal concluded that since the audit objections stemmed from an error in fixation, para 3(iii) of Annexure A5 GO could permit a further re-option to rectify the revised pay, and quashed the recovery orders. The State challenged before this High Court, contending that the outer time-limit in para 4(v) had expired and the re-option could not be invoked. The High Court, while noting the Tribunal’s reasoning was not perverse and endorsing a balancing, via-media approach, dismissed the Original Petition, upholding the Tribunal’s directions and directing implementation and refund within stipulated timeframes. The result preserves the Tribunal’s remedial approach while closing the challenge.
The petitioner, JOHNEY @ MUTHU, challenges Annexure A1, an order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Devikulam, directing him to appear and show cause why a cash bond should not be ordered under Sections 107 and 111 CrPC. The notice lacks essential particulars: it does not disclose the substance of the information received or the basis for satisfaction that proceedings under Section 107 CrPC are warranted, nor does it set out the bond amount, term, or the number and class of sureties. The petitioner contends that Annexure A1 is illegal and procedurally defective. The court reviews authorities including Girish P. and others v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KHC 929) and Bejoy K.V’s case (supra) to emphasize that an order under S.111 CrPC must contain the substance of the information, the purpose, and the particulars, enabling the person to defend himself. The court also cites that the spirit of Section 107 is to preserve peace and public tranquillity, and that past conduct alone cannot sustain initiation unless there is imminent risk of breach of peace, as reiterated in Moidu’s case (supra). In light of these principles, Annexure A1 is found unsustainable, and the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed with quashing of further proceedings based on that order.
This writ petition concerns Archana A.R., who is in a vegetative state following an anesthesia-assisted procedure and is unable to operate her bank locker. The first petitioner, her husband, along with two relatives, sought permission to operate Archana’s State Bank of India safe deposit locker to access funds for medical treatment. The bank refused. The petition relied on RBI Exhibit P3 guidelines on safe deposit locker operation and the Division Bench decision in Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2019) 1 KLT 801, arguing that guardianship and access to funds by a close relative were warranted for urgent medical reasons. The bank contended that RBI guidelines do not authorize third-party access and that Shobha Gopalakrishnan had laid out temporary guardianship guidelines only after considering circumstances; There was no specific statutory provision for appointing a guardian for a comatose patient with respect to lockers. The court directed the petitioners to file affidavits seeking appointment of a guardian and subsequently examined the matter. It recited Shobha Gopalakrishnan’s guidelines for guardianship, including medical evaluation, close-relative eligibility, and reporting requirements, in addition to government guidelines and orders (G.O. No.20/20/SJD and circular dated 03.05.2022). Invoking urgent financial needs and the beneficiary’s best interest, the Court ultimately disposed of the petition by permitting limited locker operation for three months, subject to the pending guardianship application, to be decided within three months by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, with safeguards and reporting provisions.
This Kerala High Court Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.MC 322/2022) challenges an order in CC 1085/2021 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mattancherry, under Section 482 CrPC. The petitioners, two accused, are charged with offences including wrongful restraint (Section 341 IPC), insult or obscene act (Section 294(b) IPC), assault (Section 323 IPC), wrongful confinement (Sections 448 and 452 IPC), and criminal intimidation (Section 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC). The prosecution alleges that on 17 March 2020, the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intent, restrained the complainant and caused injuries. The petitioners seek quashing on the ground of amicable settlement, supported by Annexure A6 and related affidavits, contending that no lasting grievances remain and that continuation of the proceedings would hinder peaceful resolution of disputes. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations but acknowledged absence of other crimes against the petitioners. The court examined settled law on the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes, except for heinous offences, and noted the need to consider antecedents and conduct. The court ultimately held that the circumstances justify quashing and quashed the final report (Crime No. 285/2021) and all further proceedings in CC 1085/2021, allowing the petition.
MACA NO. 689 OF 2013; CO NO. 38 OF 2022 This is a motor accident claims appeal and cross‑objection arising from an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in OPMV No.1298/2006 for injuries sustained by the claimant in a 04.04.2005 accident involving an NCC truck. The appellants (NCC and Government of India) challenge the negligence finding and the quantum of compensation; the respondent James (and cross‑objector Balakrishnan) contest the quantum and disability assessment. The court relies on the police charge sheet as prima facie proof of negligence, following New India Assurance Co. Ltd v Pazhaniammal, because the appellants did not adduce contrary evidence. On income, the Tribunal fixed Rs.3,500 per month but the Court, citing Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, accepted a higher notional or realistic income given the claimant's education and the late computation; the disability was treated as 6% not 10% and the multiplier determined with age. The tribunal’s approach to calculation of damages—pecuniary and non‑pecuniary—was examined in light of Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar and Anr., which requires just compensation to restore the claimant to pre‑accident status. After re‑evaluating the components (loss of earning, pain and suffering, disability, loss of amenities, and marriage prospects), the Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs.18,000, granting a partial cross‑objection while dismissing the appeal. Interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition; costs rejected.
BAIL APPL. NO. 555 OF 2023 This is a regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Ramachandran, the sole accused in Crime No.1163/2022 of Thenmala Police Station, Kollam. The prosecution alleges that, while working as a clerk at SBI, Thenmala Branch, he procured documents from the de facto complainant, used forged documents to transfer and misappropriate funds totaling Rs. 1,20,600 and Rs. 6,23,600, thereby committing breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. It is also alleged that he is an accused in a separate crime (Crime No.1163/2022) for further misappropriation of Rs. 1,50,000 on 04.11.2022 by obtaining signatures from an illiterate customer for renewing a fixed deposit receipt. The petitioner submitted that he has been in custody since 17.12.2022 and that the investigation has progressed; he urged grave considerations for grant of bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged offences and the bank’s loss, and noting the petitioner’s repeated involvement in similar misconduct. After evaluating custody, investigation progress, and the nature of the accusations, the court concluded that bail could be granted with conditions to prevent recurrence and ensure cooperation. The order directs release on bond with conditions, including non-engagement in further offences, witness protection, appearance, no inducement, passport surrender, and binding oversight by the Investigating Officer, with a copy of the order to the SBI Bank for information.
WP(C) Nos. 13543 of 2022 & 13443 of 2023 Two connected writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 13543 of 2022 and 13443 of 2023) were heard together before a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The petitioner, Girish C., is a Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) posted at BPCL Cochin. On 28 March 2022 he was transferred from Cochin; he challenged the transfer, submitting a representation that his ailing mother required medical follow-up and his wife was a state employee, seeking deferment or cancellation of the transfer. Acknowledging his circumstances, the CISF authorities deferred the transfer for one year (order dated 11 May 2022). After the deferment period, a new transfer order dated 12 March 2023 directed his relief from BPCL Cochin and transfer to CISF ASG, Delhi, with a clearance certificate due by 29 April 2023. The petitioner sought various reliefs in WP(C) 13443/2023, including a declaration of eligibility to remain in Kerala-based postings (per Exts. P2 and P4) and quashing Ext. P3 and Ext. P7 transfer orders, or at least a further one-year extension. Respondents argued that CISF personnel are subject to Section 15 of the CISF Act, 1968, and that transfers are routine and necessary; guidelines in Circular No.22/2017 allocate 30% Home State, 30% Home Sector, and 40% Out-of-Home Sector, with tenures aligned to service needs. The court found that the petitioner, having already availed a one-year deferment, cannot invoke Clause 26 of the circular for a second extension, and that the transfer complied with CISF guidelines. Relying on Shilpi Bose, Major General J.K. Bansal, and Divyamol R.S., the court refused interference. Both petitions were dismissed with directions for the petitioner to comply with Ext. P7 within 15 days. The judgment underscores the limited judicial scrutiny of transfers in disciplined forces and affirms the employer’s prerogatives to reassign personnel in the public interest.
Abdul Aneesh, the petitioner in OP(MV) No.682/2011, challenges an award of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Manjeri, which awarded Rs. 5,41,889 as compensation with 9% interest and costs. The accident occurred on 22 October 2010 when the vehicle Reg. No. KL 60-2859, driven rashly by the 1st respondent, struck him as he stood on the Nilambur–Manjeri road. The petitioner, who ran a cool bar near Nilambur Bus Station, claimed a monthly income of Rs.12,000 and permanent disability. The 1st and 2nd respondents were ex parte; the 3rd respondent insurer disputed the petition but admitted the vehicle was insured. The Tribunal found the accident proved and the insurer liable, but fixed the petitioner’s notional income at Rs.4,000 per month and awarded compensation accordingly. It did not grant future prospects. The High Court analyzed decisions like Pranay Sethi and Ramachandrappa and, noting the year of accident (2010), re-fixed the petitioner’s notional income at Rs.7,500 per month, allowing for ten months’ loss of earnings ( Rs.75,000) and bystander expenses Rs.8,600 for 43 hospital days. It upheld 43% disability from the Medical Board and rejected a later request for re-examination. The judge awarded 40% future prospects on a 32-year-old worker, yielding a disability plus future prospects of Rs.8,66,880, and enhanced other heads. Overall, the award rose from Rs.5,41,889 to Rs.12,75,369, taking guidance from Nagappa to permit higher awards than claimed. The Tribunal was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within two months, for disbursement in due course.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the sole accused challenging an order dated 6 March 2021 passed by the Fast Track Special Court, Kozhikode, dismissing a Section 311 Cr.P.C. petition to recall two prosecution witnesses (PW1 and PW2) and their mother, in connection with S.C.No.347/2019, registered for offences under IPC 376(2)(f)(i) and various provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner contends that recalling PW1 (the rape survivor) and PW2 (her mother) is necessary for a fair and complete truth-seeking process, as cross-examination could reveal omissions and contradictions in their previous statements (161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C). The accused argues that certain questions and lines of inquiry were not properly pursued or marked, which could affect the defence’s ability to establish innocence. The State counters that the POCSO Act, particularly Section 33(5), bars repeated recall of a child witness, and that the trial has already proceeded with substantial testimony. The court surveys jurisprudence on contradictions arising from omissions under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C, citing Tahsildar Singh, Bharat Chaganlal Raghani, Mishra, Karan Singh, the guidelines in 2017 KLT, Kochappan alias Thomayil, Rajendra Prasad, Padhmanabhan, and Raja Ram Prasad Yadav. Ultimately, it holds that recalling PW1 and PW2 is not necessary for a just decision and dismisses the Crl.M.C, preserving the protection against repeated child witness examination.
Faizal M.I., a resident of Alappuzha and a party-in-person petitioner, challenges ongoing coastal development at Alappuzha Beach. He alleges that the Directorate of Tourism, in collusion with Muziris Heritage Project, proposes to install a naval ship named 'Infaq T-81' on the landward side of the beach near the high tide line, with discussions about bringing another large ship and a Russian aircraft. The petitioner contends the project would violate Coastal Regulation Zone norms (CRZ-II), disrupt the pristine landscape, and erode the natural environs and aesthetics of the beach, which is a cherished coastal asset. He also asserts the absence of public consultation, lack of information boards, and past sand excavations that have altered the shoreline. The respondents are urged to halt construction, restore the site, remove fencing around a pine thicket proposed as an open gym, and ensure conformance with CRZ norms while preserving aesthetics in heritage planning. The petition relies on newspaper reports (Exhibits P1–P2) and a representation dated 07/07/2021; however, the court notes PILs based solely on newspaper reports are generally not maintainable and requires authenticated material. Exhibits reveal correspondence with the Ministry of Environment, which directed assessment under CRZ norms. The High Court ultimately declines the requested reliefs but directs action per Exhibit P9 (27 July 2021) to be carried out within a month, disposing of the petition with appropriate directions to the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority.
This Kerala High Court Motor Accidents Claims Appeal concerns liability for compensation arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a goods autorickshaw, with the insurer as appellant challenging the MACT award. The 1st respondent, Thankappan, sustained injuries in an accident on 02.03.2008, while travelling in a goods autorickshaw driven by the 2nd respondent and owned by the 3rd respondent, insured with the appellant. The MACT found the 2nd respondent negligent and held the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation, though noting a violation of policy conditions due to the driver lacking a valid license; the insurer was directed to pay the award first and then recover the amount from the owner/driver. The Insurance Company challenged, arguing that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger and the policy coverage could not extend to gratuitous passengers in a goods autorickshaw; the vehicle had no facility to accommodate an additional passenger; the policy Ext. B1 did not cover such risk. The respondent/claimant contended that a comprehensive policy should cover passengers and relied on Supreme Court precedents directing insurers to pay first and recover later. The Kerala High Court, however, relying on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Daisy Paul (2021 (2) KHC 449), held that those directions are issued under Article 142 and cannot be invoked here, and that the policy does not extend to cover the passenger risk. Consequently, the award was set aside to the extent of directing deposit, the insurer exonerated, and the claimant empowered to recover from the other respondents.”
This is an appeal under MACA No. 1923 of 2014 before the Kerala High Court, arising from an award dated 25-02-2012 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, in OP(MV) 1628/2009. Shan Shereef, the appellant, who was a pillion rider, sustained serious injuries in a 2007 accident on Ayathil-Mevaram Public Road when a Maruti van driven rashly by the 2nd respondent collided with his motorcycle. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding the appellant at fault. The appellant challenged the award, contending that the Police final report (Ext.A4) concluded the 2nd respondent negligent and that, under controlling precedents, a police charge-sheet can constitute prima facie evidence of negligence under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondents argued the injuries were simple, the claim was excessive, and the petition may be bad for non-joinder; the insurer contends that the award be maintained. The High Court reviewed the matter, noted the settled law in Pazhaniammal and Kolavan that a charge-sheet can be treated as sufficient evidence of negligence unless contradicted, and found the Tribunal erred in not accepting Ext.A4. The court set aside the Tribunal’s finding of appellant’s negligence, held the 1st and 3rd respondents liable, and redetermined compensation, ultimately ordering Rs.1,90,100 with interest and costs.
This writ petition challenges the Government’s power to summarily dismiss an application for leave to pursue doctoral or post-doctoral research under Rule 91A of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. The petitioner sought leave with allowances to pursue a Ph.D.; authorities granted Leave Without Allowances (LWA). The petitioner contends that policy decisions cannot override statutory provisions and that the government must decide on merits. Relying on the Division Bench decision in Secretary, Higher Education Department v. V.R. Rajalakshmi and Others (2012 (3) KHC 498), it is urged that, if the government is satisfied that the candidate is likely to accomplish the commitment within the promised time frame, the application cannot be rejected solely on general policy grounds. The Government pleader counters that a blanket policynot to grant LWA for Ph.D./Post-Doctoral research is within executive power, as shown by Ext. P11. The court emphasizes that Rajalakshmi requires a case-by-case assessment of credentials and potential, and that a general policy cannot substitute for the merits of the individual candidate. It concludes that the impugned orders are inconsistent with the binding precedent and sets them aside. The court directs the Government to reconsider the petitioner’s application after hearing and considering all relevant documents, expeditiously but within two months from receipt of this judgment.
