Kerala Court November 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Manninkal Krishna Kurup Vs. Swamiyar Avergal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Ker36
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The appellant plaintiff was a clerk in a religious institution governed by the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The hereditary trustee of this institution had been removed from office and the management of the institution taken over by the Endowments Board which acted through an executive officer, and it would appear that the plaintiff was first appointed as clerk by the executive officer. However, consequent to the provisions of the Act authorising such assumption of management having been struck down, the management was restored to the trustee, the 1st defendant herein who appointed the 2nd defendant as a manager under him. On application made by him to the 2nd defendant on 1-7-1956, the plaintiff was appointed as a clerk on probation, and, that being so, it is clear that the plaintiff's right to the office of clerk depends solely on his appointment under the 1st defendant and cannot in any way relate to his previous...
K.M. Joseph, Trivandrum and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker244; (1969)IILLJ475Ker
ORDERM.U. Isaac, J.1. These two Original Petitions arise out of the same facts, and they seek a common relief. The petitioner in O. P. No. 1211 is a first Grade Professor of Zoology in the University College, Trivandrum; and the petitioner in O. P. No. 1792 is a First Grade Professor of Chemistry in Maharaja's College, Ernakulam. Both of them are in the service of the State of Kerala. At the time of filing O. P. No. 1211, the petitioner in this Original Petition was the senior-most in that Grade. According to the petitioner in O. P. No. 1792, there has been a subsequent correction in seniority list of the First Grade Professors, as a result of which he became the seniormost. It is not clear whether there is a controversy between them regarding seniority. However, that question does not arise in these cases. The respondents in both the cases are the same. Arguments were advanced before me only in O. P. No. 1792 of 1967; and it was agreed at the hearing that O. P. No. 1211 can be dispose...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›