WP(C) No. 10612 of 2024 & connected cases This is a consolidated batch of writ petitions concerning the freezing of bank accounts in cybercrime investigations. Petitioners include individuals, co‑operative banks, travel/tour operators, and various entities whose accounts were frozen by police/cybercrime authorities across different jurisdictions. The petitions challenge the blanket freezing and seek relief of unfreezing or limiting freezes, arguing that the freezes imperil livelihood and business operations while the police seek to preserve assets as proceeds or potential proceeds of crime. The Kerala High Court, on 26 March 2024, heard WP(C) 10612 of 2024 and connected matters and issued directions to restrict the freezing to the specific amounts mentioned in the police requisitions, directing respondent Banks to confine the freeze to those amounts and to inform the police about continuation beyond that limit. The court mandated banks to enable the petitioners to deal with surplus funds, and if information to continue freezing beyond the specified amounts is not provided, petitioners may approach the court again, with reservations kept open. The judgment relies on Dr. Sajeer v RBI (2023 KHC OnLine 661) and references an order in W.P.(C) 28155/2023 to support its directions. The decision disposes of WP(C) 10612/2024 and connected cases with these procedural safeguards and time-bound implementations.
This is OP (FC) No. 631 of 2022 before the Kerala High Court, involving Rubiya Sainudeen (mother) and Sadhik Ali (father) regarding custody of Muhammed Ali, aged 5. The original petition (O.P. No. 92 of 2017) was settled by a compromise decree dated 04.05.2017, which granted permanent custody to the mother and allowed the father visitation on the second Sunday of every month from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at V.M. Public School, Perumattam, with other relatives authorized to interact with the child. In 2022, the father filed I.A. No. 1/2022 seeking modification of the compromise decree, alleging changed circumstances; the mother countered maintainability of the modification petition (I.A. No. 1/2022) and contested modification. The Family Court proceedings were steered toward whether Ext. P3 (father’s modification petition) could be considered before Ext. P5 (mother’s maintainability petition). The High Court, after noting interactions with the child and the parties, relied on Supreme Court precedents including Rosy Jacob, Yashita Sahu, and Vasudha Sethi to underscore that the child’s welfare is paramount and that custody orders are provisional, capable of modification in light of changing circumstances. It emphasized the child’s right to care from both parents and the necessity of visitation rights where custody is altered. The petition is disposed of with interim custody governed by the Ext. P1 compromise, and Exts. P3 and P5 to be decided in the light of these principles.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4501 OF 2025 This Kerala High Court bail application concerns two petitioners, Shajahhan and Nissar, accused in Crime No. 298/2025 of the Mananthavady Police Station, Wayanad. The petition is under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging offences alleged under Sections 74, 115(2) and 296(b) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution case states that on 23 February 2025 at about 12:30 pm, the defacto complainant (wife of the petitioners’ brother) visited the marital home under a residence order; the petitioners allegedly used obscene words, the first accused bit the complainant’s hand, and the second accused grabbed her hair and threatened to kill her. The petitioners seek bail, arguing that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that the only non-bailable element is under Sec. 74; the court notes that the question of Sec. 74’s ingredients is a matter for investigation. Citing Supreme Court rulings such as Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court reiterates that bail is a rule and arrest must be justified rather than routine. The order grants bail with stringent conditions: the petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks for interrogation; if arrest is contemplated, release on bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; they shall not leave India; shall cooperate with the investigation; and the court may cancel bail for violations. The authority notes that investigation may continue even on bail, citing Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez principles.
This Regular First Appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of Ext.A1 (dated 05.04.2011) involving a plaint schedule property of 29 cents in Kannur. The first appellant-defendants were the owner (defendant 1) and his brother (defendant 2) executing Ext.A1 as power of attorney holder for sale at Rs.2,82,000 per cent; Rs.9 lakhs formed part of the advance. Plaintiffs contend that despite repeated demands the defendants failed to execute the sale deed and that the defendants began to transfer the property to others. Several payments totaling Rs.66 lakhs are endorsed on Ext.A1, with the balance deposited in related proceedings; the plaintiffs claim readiness and willingness to perform and seek specific performance of Ext.A1. The trial court found the plaintiffs always ready and willing and decreed specific performance, rejecting defenses that the contract was interlinked with two other agreements and that the suit was barred by Order II, Rule 2, CPC. The appellants argue lack of readiness, misjoinder of claims, and misuse of equity given alleged oblique motives and alternative sales of other properties. The High Court, after examining payments, notices, and the nine-month extension from 15.02.2012, holds Ext.A1 as an independent transaction and affirms the trial court’s discretionary decree, dismissing the appeal with no costs. The matter ends with the appeal dismissed in favor of the plaintiffs.
RP 1025 of 2022 in WA 1253 of 2022 & con. Review Petitions; RP 1030/2022 in WA 1128/2022; RP 1035/2022 in WA 1081/2022; RP 1036/2022 in WA 1123/2022 This is a consolidated Kerala High Court order disposing of four review petitions (R.P. Nos. 1025, 1030, 1035 and 1036 of 2022) arising from two writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 2896/2021 and 3353/2022) challenging the regular appointment of a Physical Education Teacher at TMV Higher Secondary School, Perumbilavu. The court reconsiders the vacancy date and the date on which the petitioners could acquire the required qualification. The dispute centers on whether the vacancy arose on 01.06.2018 on the retirement of the prior teacher (Denny Job) or only on 01.07.2018, and whether the result of the petitioner’s degree in Physical Education, published on 05.07.2018, should affect the appointment. The court relies on Rule 63 of Chapter XIVA Kerala Education Rules (KER) and Rule 60(c) of Part I KSR to determine vacancy and qualification dates, and engages Bhaskaran v. Viswanathan (2000 KHC 320) to discuss the date of acquisition of qualifications. However, it holds that subsequent amendments (second proviso to Rule 62, Chapter XIVA KER, 2007) render Bhaskaran no longer good law for this context. Consequently, the review petitions are dismissed, maintaining the original order in the writ appeals that the manager’s appointment in 01.06.2018 was in order and the authorities’ approval followed thereafter.
Alan, the first accused in Crime No.23/2020 of the Thrissur Excise Range, is before the Kerala High Court seeking bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The petition arises from SC No.693 of 2022, on the file of the Additional District Court, Thrissur, for offences under Sections 22(b), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner states he was arrested and released on bail at the crime stage; although summoned he could not appear before the Trial Court. He is willing to surrender and moves for bail, fearing remand if he surrenders without a bail order. The court emphasizes the sanctity of personal liberty and recalls that remand cannot be casual or punitive for non-appearance. It relies on prior guidelines from this Court’s judgments (Biju S. Praveen v. State of Kerala and Rajeevan v. State of Kerala) that personal liberty is valuable and that bail decisions must be reasoned and timely, with courts mindful of following the directives when passing bail orders. In disposing of the petition, the court directs surrender within two weeks, allows filing a bail application at the time of surrender with advance copy to the prosecutor, and directs the jurisdictional court to decide the bail on merit, preferably on the date of filing, in light of the cited dicta.
This appeal arises from a MACT Alappuzha award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concerning the death of M. R. Prakasan in a January 7, 2006 accident. The Tribunal found negligence by the driver of the offending car (KL-16/B232) and awarded Rs. 4,82,640 to the wife, minor child, and mother of the deceased. The insurer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., challenged the quantum, disputing causation and contending the accident occurred due to the deceased’s own negligence; it further argued the petitioners’ compensation was excessive and that cross-objections were unnecessary to seek enhancement. The respondents supported the Tribunal’s award and sought enhancement. The High Court, relying on Ext. A7 (police charge sheet) and multiple precedents (Nagappa, APSRTC, Surekha, Minu Rout, Mubarak, Sasidharan Namboothiri, Sangit Arya, Ramachandrappa, Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, National Insurance, New India Somwati), held that the Tribunal’s notional income could be increased to Rs.5,500 with future prospects (25%), applying a 14 multiplier and deducting 1/3 for personal living expenses, resulting in a revised loss of dependency of Rs.7,70,000. Consequently, adjustments were made to funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, and pain and suffering, yielding a total of Rs.9,77,500. The appeal is allowed in part; the insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months with interest at 8% per annum until realization, with costs, and disbursement to petitioners as per Tribunal ratios. The judgment underscores the court’s duty to award just compensation, even in the absence of cross-objections, and confirms enhancement under Article 142 principles.
WA 2114 of 2019 & connected cases This batch of writ appeals from the Kerala High Court concerns a clash between central SARFAESI-based debt recovery mechanisms and state tax/registration charges on property. The Learned Single Judge had held that a secured creditor’s priority under SARFAESI (26E) and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (31B) could trump State revenue liens, thereby quashing proceedings by sales tax/registration authorities against mortgaged properties. The Division Bench, in a consolidated judgment with several connected appeals (including WA nos. 2449/2019, 132/2020, 133/2020, 144/2020, 204/2020, 241/2020, 616/2021, 1096/2021, 1655/2021, 620/2022, 652/2022, 659/2022, 723/2022, 817/2022), reconsiders the priority of statutory charges under KGST Act, 1963 and KVAT Act, 2003 vis-a-vis Section 26E of SARFAESI and Section 31B of the RDDB Act. It holds that the State’s statutory first charges remain intact and run with the property, even after banks’ sales actions, until encumbrances are cleared as per state law. The court thus reverses (interferes with) the common order and allows the writ appeals, dismissing the petitions by financial institutions seeking to override state charges. The decision emphasizes that “priority in payment” under SARFAESI coexists with, rather than nullifies, prior statutory charges, and that sale notices, encumbrance disclosures, and transfers must respect these charges.
WP(C).No.16048 OF 2020(E) This writ petition, filed by Bindu C. and Sindhu B., wife and daughter of Havildar Radhakrishnan K. of the Assam Rifles, challenges the Kerala Government’s Compassionate Appointment Scheme as applied to personnel of Assam Rifles. The petition asserts that Ext.P2 certifies that the death was caused by paramilitary service and that their dependent eligibility was unlawfully excluded by GO(MS)No.257/79/GAD (Ext.P7, 2002) which initially did not include Assam Rifles; later extensions Ext.P9 and Ext.P11/Ext.P15 added other forces but kept Assam Rifles out or subject to a restrictive date (07.06.2019). The petitioners argue the exclusion creates unfair prejudice, particularly since Havildar Radhakrishnan died in 2004, well before the 2019 inclusions. The Government maintains the scheme originated in 1974 to assist forces under the state's purview and that Ext.P7 relaxed criteria; Ext.P11 and Ext.P15 expand coverage in a policy manner, with no retrospective effect. The judge notes that judicial review in policy matters is narrow, but finds the Assam Rifles' exclusion for a long period unjust. He holds that the Government's policy is not perverse, but directs that the competent authority consider extending benefits to Assam Rifles dependents ‘de hors’ the cut-off, including retrospective relief if feasible, and to decide within three months, followed by an order within one more month. The decision emphasizes that policy must address historical inequities and ensure coherence with the treatment of similar forces.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P1 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki in ID No.21/2003, which concerned the dismissal of Krishnan, a driver employed by Wallardie Estate. The Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal under G.O. Rt. No. 1201/2003/LBR dated 8 May 2003. The Tribunal, in its preliminary ruling dated 25.11.2005, held that the domestic enquiry violated the principles of natural justice and accordingly permitted fresh evidence. MW2 (field officer) and MW3 (assistant field officer) testified; WW1 (the workman) was examined. On evaluating the available evidence, the Tribunal found that the misconduct could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages, stating the financial plight of the tea estates justified the partial back wage relief. The Manager challenged Ext.P1 in this writ petition, contending lack of proper appreciation of evidence and back wages without basis, citing Apex Court guidance on back wages. The respondents urged that back wages follow reinstatement and that interference under Articles 226/227 is unwarranted. The Court, while recognizing the Tribunal’s detailed examination, noted lack of explicit consideration of back wages. Relying on Management of Regional Chief Engineer’s case, the Court set aside the 50% back wages portion but upheld the rest, and allowed the petition in part.
Education is treated as the fundamental block of life, and teachers are deemed nation-builders. The petitioner, an Assistant Professor in Malayalam, challenged the Kannur University’s Selection Committee’s inclusion of the 5th respondent in the Ext. P4 Provisional Ranked List for direct recruitment as Associate Professor under UGC Regulations, 2018. The petitioner argued that the 5th respondent lacked the required eight years of actual teaching experience under Regulation 4.1(II) and that the Selection Committee acted arbitrarily in counting periods of service such as FDP (Faculty Development Programme) and positions like Director of Student Services (DSS) as teaching experience, contrary to Regulation 3.11, which restricts counting of time spent on research to those periods overlapping with teaching, unless explicitly allowed. The respondent University argued that the 5th respondent’s varied roles—including FDP, DSS, and NSS coordination—constitute teaching experience or are legitimate under related government orders and regulations. The court reviewed the Regulations, emphasising that teaching experience must be tangible and actual, and that Regulation 3.11 counts only periods spent in active teaching while pursuing research. Finding grave errors in Ext.P4’s recorded experience and the process, the court allowed the petition and directed re-assessment of the 5th respondent’s credentials, with publication of a Final Ranked List after due verification, ensuring conformity with UGC Regulations.
This is a bail petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, by Ashwin Tom in Crime No.124/2025 at Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences under Sections 117(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109 and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The prosecution claims that on 10 August 2024 at 1:30 AM the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant and his companions, causing serious injuries including grievous hurt. The defense contends the incident did not occur as described; it notes that the main case is Crime No.636/2024 in which the defacto complainant sustained injuries including a fracture, and that Annexure-A2 links the two cases; thus the present crime is a counter case. Counsel for the petitioner stated willingness to accept stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor reported no criminal antecedents so far. The court recognized that there are two versions of the same incident and that a bail inquiry cannot determine which version is correct. Citing the bail principle and rulings such as Chidambaram, Siddharth, Manish Sisodia, Joginder Kumar, the court concluded that bail is the rule, with the possibility of imposing conditions. The bail application is allowed with conditions: appear before investigating officer within two weeks, bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties, continue interrogation, not to leave India without permission, not to threaten or influence witnesses, and that failure to comply may cancel bail; Anzar Azeez guidance is applicable.
WP(C) No. 14439 of 2020; WP(C) No. 18058 of 2020 These are two interconnected writ petitions challenging the continuance of a Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) petroleum outlet operated on land leased from the petitioner in Konni, Pathanamthitta. In W.P.(C) No.14439/2020, the petitioner V.T. Muralidharan Pillai contends that HPCL took 27.5 cents on lease for 20 years from 1999 to 2019 and that the lease expired on 31.07.2019; HPCL purportedly refused to vacate, relying on a mutual extension clause. The petitioner claims the lease expiry rendered HPCL’s possession illegal and seeks a declaration that the petroleum outlet is unlawful and renewal/licensing issues be resolved. The 5th respondent, operating the outlet under the name “Jwala Fuels,” allegedly lacks a valid trade licence, and the petitioner seeks revocation of any licence until disputes are resolved. W.P.(C) No.18058/2020 is filed by the 5th respondent seeking quashing a Panchayat notice to stop operations for lack of licence and for renewal of trade licence for 2020–2021, arguing the applicant has recently started operations and should be allowed to continue pending outcome of W.P.(C) No.14439/2020. The High Court disposed of both petitions by directing renewal/consideration processes, guided by a Supreme Court decision (Albert Morris) and a prior Kerala case (W.P.(C) No.10213 of 2020), directing the licensing authority and the Panchayat to act within specified timeframes subject to the outcome of the licensing process. The court noted there would be no order as to costs.
BAIL APPL. NO. 573 OF 2023 This Kerala High Court bail application concerns accused Nos.2 to 7 in Crime No.1495/2022 of Kannur Town Police Station. The petitioners sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC while the investigation was ongoing. The prosecution alleges that on the night of 18.12.2022, the accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with a common object to assault the defacto complainant and his friend, causing serious injuries including fractures. The offences, under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, are grave in nature, reflecting a violent confrontation post a World Cup football final. The petitioners argued that the incident arose from a clash and there was no intention to kill; the investigation is nearly complete and their custody is unnecessary for further progress. The Public Prosecutor countered by highlighting seriousness of injuries and that two accused have criminal antecedents; release on bail could impede investigation. The judge reviewed the case diary and wound certificates, noting lengthy injuries to the complainant and his friend. While the second accused has multiple prior crimes including two 2022 incidents, the court found the other petitioners eligible for bail given their custody since 19.12.2022 and the absence of compelling reasons to continue detention. The court ultimately dismissed the bail for accused No.2 (the second accused) and allowed bail for accused Nos.3 to 7 on specified conditions.
Ex.FA Nos. 9/2021, 12/2021, 11/2021, 14/2021, 13/2021, 15/2021 These six Execution First Appeals arise from a common order of the III Additional District Court, Thrissur, lifting attachments under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC in EP 139/2012. The decree was originally passed by the High Court of Bombay and later transferred to Kerala for execution. Six claimants—Keli Hotels (P) Limited, Rajagopal Textiles Pvt Ltd, Sumesh, Usha, Swapna, Menachery Hospital Pvt Ltd, and Vasudevan—had each obtained attachment over respective properties. Cotton Corporation of India, as decree holder, challenged the common order lifting attachments on grounds that any relief under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act was time-barred and that the protective nature of attachment cannot be treated as a defense; it relied on a 2002 Kerala case (Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi) to argue absence of limitation in such defenses. The respondents argued attachments are protective measures to secure execution and that constructive notice arises from transfers to strangers, justifying preservation of attachments. The Kerala High Court, however, held that attachment is a protective measure rather than a defense under Section 53, and that three-year limitation applies; there is no scope to invoke Section 53 post‑facto. Consequently, the six appeals were dismissed, without costs, upholding the trial court’s common order lifting the attachments.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit filed by the plaintiffs (and defendant No.2) challenging a gift deed (Exhibit A2) executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of plaint schedule property belonging to a registered society. The plaintiff society, under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, asserts that the society’s property vested in its governing body, and that defendant No.2 lacked authority to execute Ext.A2 on behalf of the society. The Trial Court decreed the suit, cancelling Ext.A2 and issuing a permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating the property or causing waste. The First Appellate Court confirmed the decision. The defendant No.1 challenged the judgments in a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court framed substantial questions of law: whether the President of the society could validly assign the property with the governing body’s concurrence, and whether Ext.A2 could be cancelled in the peculiar facts. The court analyzed the Act’s Section 8, which vests property in the governing body unless trustees hold it, and rejected the appellant’s claim. It held that Ext.A2 lacked authority and that the adverse possession pleas were unsupported by evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial and appellate judgments and directing costs against the appellant.
This writ appeal arises from disciplinary action against K. Lakshmanan, a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable, who was found in possession of Rs.1573 during duty beyond the amount declared and contrary to unit standing instructions limiting cash to ₹10. An Enquiry Officer held him guilty; Ext. P14 (22.10.2009) imposed compulsory retirement with full pension and gratuity; suspension from 30.05.2009 to 03.09.2009 was to be treated as suspension for all purposes. An appeal was rejected; a revision by the Director General of CISF (Ext. P19) reduced the punishment to two-year pay reduction with no increments and reinstated him, directing him to report for duty within 15 days; dies non treatment of the intervening period (Ext. P23) followed. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging Exts. P14, P16, P19 and P23. The learned Single Judge held the writ petition not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Division Bench, while upholding the lis, held that the writ petition was maintainable under Kusum Ingots, and that the respondent authorities’ actions were not vitiated by malafides or procedural defects. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the orders and the dies-non treatment under Rule 55 CISF Rules. The matter clarifies the limits of judicial review in disciplinary cases and the territorial jurisdiction principle in chain-of-orders.”
WP(C).No.13396 OF 2020(Y) Marymatha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Mary Matha Construction Company) filed WP(C) No.13396 of 2020 (Y) challenging Ext.P14, a communication appointing a new adjudicator under the contract Ext.P1 for disputes arising from a bridge construction project at Bhoothathankettu. Ext.P1 contains Clauses 24–26 governing disputes: reference to the Adjudicator within 14 days of the Engineer’s decision; the Adjudicator to give a written decision within 28 days; either party may refer the Adjudicator’s decision to arbitration within 28 days, failing which the Adjudicator’s decision is final and binding; and Replacement of Adjudicator in case of resignation, death, or non-fulfilment of functions. The Adjudicator’s Ext.P10 decision dated 20.01.2020 concerned several claims; thereafter, the respondents informed Ext.P11 of appointing another adjudicator with Ext.P14 in 2020. The petitioner contends Ext.P14 infringes Ext.P1’s dispute-resolution provisions and that the remedy lies in arbitration, not a fresh adjudicator; it also asserts the adjudicator’s appointment after expiry of the contract is void. The respondents contend the contract contemplates adjudication and replacement; they argue the writ petition is not maintainable in contractual matters and that Ext.P10 was not final or binding without consent to extend. The court noted that Article 226 relief is not categorically barred in contractual disputes but ultimately dismissed the petition, citing serious factual disputes and the availability of arbitration. The writ petition was dismissed, leaving other contentions unresolved.
The Kerala High Court, hearing a Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 CrPC, considers quashing of proceedings against four accused (accused Nos. 1 to 4) in SC No. 455 of 2022 arising from offences under Sections 323, 326, 452, 308, 294(b) read with Section 34 IPC. The petition argues that the dispute has been amicably settled, with the victim expressing no lasting grievances, and requests quashing to enable peaceful closure. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing non‑compoundable offences merely on the basis of a settlement and notes there are no other serious crimes by the petitioners. The court surveys jurisprudence from the Supreme Court, notably State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (cited for background) and the leading decisions Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to delineate the scope of Section 482 powers for quashing non‑compoundable offences. It is observed that quashing may be appropriate where the offence is private in nature, involves settlement of the entire dispute, and would not adversely affect society; however, it should not apply to heinous or societal‑impact crimes (e.g., offences under Section 307 IPC, the Arms Act) or where public interest requires continued prosecution. After weighing gravity, injuries, antecedents, and the settled relationship between parties, the court allows the petition and quashes the Final Report (crime no. 27/2022) and proceedings in SC No. 455 of 2022.
Ajitha Mambayil, a former UPSA at Kadathanad Raja’s Higher Secondary School (an aided school), approaches this Court seeking recognition as a Rule 51A claimant and directives for reappointment as UPSA with attendant benefits. She had two spells of approved UPSA service in 1995 and 1999-2000 and, following the Manager’s rejection of her request, filed Ext.P17 revision petition (before the 1st respondent) seeking relief. The petition sought (i) declaration as a Rule 51A claimant, (ii) mandamus to appoint her as UPSA and disburse benefits, and (iii) direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P17 in light of Exts.P10–P16 with notice. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit arguing that she had only served as a leave substitute and that, during 2019-2020, new posts were created and filled; the 4th respondent’s approval of appointments is cited. The respondent-school argues that, under the amended Rule 7A(3), a claimant under Rule 51A (on account of termination of vacancies) must show continuous service for one full academic year as per Rule 1 and 2A of Chapter VII of the Kerala Education Rules (KER). The Court discerns that the petitioner did not meet this criterion, and, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Sneha Cherian; Manager, VKNM), interprets the amended framework accordingly. The Court finds directing Ext.P17’s consideration futile, and dismisses the petition with no costs.”
