Anitha A v. State of Kerala and Others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 2255 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER/S:** ANITHA A AGED 52 YEARS WIFE OF PROF. S. JAYADEV, PRINCIPAL, VISWABHARATHI MODEL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KAPPILMEKKU, KRISHNAPURAM, KAYAMKULAM-690 533, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT (RESIDING AT DEVARAGAM, SOUTH MONKUZHY, P.O. PULLLIKKANAKKU, (VIA) KAYAMKULAM-690 537, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT), PIN - 690533 BY ADVS. M.SAJJAD V.A.MUHAMMED ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, PIN - 695001 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, (HIGHER SECONDARY) HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001, PIN - 695001 3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 121, PIN - 689121 4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, NEAR CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001, PIN - 688001 5 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 101, PIN - 690101 6 THE MANAGER, VISWABHARATHI MODEL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KAPPILMEKKU, KRISHNAPURAM, KAYAMKULAM-690 533, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690533 7 SRI.PRABHATH.B., HSST(PHYSCIS), VISWABHARATHI MODEL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KAPPILMEKKU, KRISHNAPURAM, KAYAMKULAM-690 533, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690533 WP(C).No.2255/2023 **2** BY ADVS. DIPU.R. R. K.S.BAIJU(K/000862/2004) DEVI KRIPA R.(K/000427/2001) P.V.SARITHA VENUGOPAL(K/248/2003) DHANYA BABU(K/1237/2006) NEETHU SASI(K/001288/2016) ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT. SURYA BINOY SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.2255/2023 **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------W.P.(C).No.2255 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th ] day of March, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** Viswabharathi Model Higher Secondary School, Kappilmekku (for short, the School) is an aided School and the School was upgraded as Higher Secondary School in 2014-2015. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in **Aided Higher Secondary School Teachers Association v. State of Kerala [2005 (1) KLT 94]** there is an admissible post of Principal in the School on upgradation as Higher Secondary School. Ext.P1 is the above judgment. It is the case of the petitioner that besides that, posts were created in the Higher Secondary Section by the Government in 2017 including the post of Principal. Ext.P2 is the Government Order. The petitioner commenced service as High School WP(C).No.2255/2023 **4** Assistant (HSA) (Natural Science) in the School with effect from 01.08.1991. She was promoted as Headmistress in June 2020, as evident by Ext.P3. The petitioner is a post graduate and she also cleared Departmental Tests. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that she is qualified for the post of Principal from the feeder category of Headmaster. In terms of Rules 4 and 6 of Chapter XXXII, KER, Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) having 12 years of teaching experience (of which at least 6 years in the Higher Secondary Wing) and qualified Headmasters are in the feeder category. It is the case of the petitioner that in the absence of qualified hand in one category, incumbent from the other category can be promoted as Principal. It is submitted that, since the School was upgraded only in the year 2014-15, no qualified HSST was available for the post of Principal, for want of 12 years experience. It is the case of the petitioner that she alone was the qualified hand available in the feeder category for promotion as Principal. As such, WP(C).No.2255/2023 **5** seeking promotion, the petitioner approached the Manager on several occasions is the submission. When there was no response from the Manager, the petitioner moved the Government and filed W.P.(C). No.15974/2021. Based on the directions of this Court, the Government issued Ext.P4 order directing the Manager to promote the petitioner. In turn, Manager appointed the petitioner as Principal and sent proposal for approval to the 3[rd] respondent. Ext.P5 is the proposal from the Manager. Ext.P6 is the appointment order. Since there was no action thereafter, the petitioner again moved this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.14709/2022. One of the reason for not considering the proposal for promoting the petitioner was that there was no class periods available in the Higher Secondary Section for the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that in the light of the judgment in **Jayaraj V.P and another v. State of Kerala [2016 (2) KLT 200],** such an objection is untenable. W.P. (C). No.14709/2022 was disposed of as per Ext.P7 WP(C).No.2255/2023 **6** judgment, directing the 3[rd] respondent to take a decision in the matter in the light of of the binding Government orders as well as the judgments of this Court. It is submitted that the 3[rd] respondent, without referring to **Jayaraj's case** (supra), issued Ext.P8 order declining approval to the petitioner as Principal stating that there is no teaching hours for allotting to the petitioner. Aggrieved by Ext.P8, the petitioner again filed W.P.(C). No.20286/2022, stating that **Jayaraj's case** (supra) was not considered by the 3[rd] respondent, even though it was specifically directed to be considered by this Court. As per Ext.P9 judgment, this Court again directed the 3[rd] respondent to reconsider the matter afresh in terms of Ext.P7 judgment. According to the petitioner, the 7[th] respondent HSST is not qualified for the post of Principal. But the 7[th] respondent filed a review petition against Ext.P9 judgment. As per Ext.P10, the review petition was disposed of without interfering with the direction, but permitting the 7[th] respondent also to WP(C).No.2255/2023 **7** participate in the hearing. It is contended that, the 3[rd] respondent, without adverting to any of the judgments and Government Orders including **Jayaraj's case** (supra), rejected the approval to the promotion of the petitioner again, on the same reason that no work load is available to the petitioner for taking classes in the event of promoting her as Principal. While issuing the order, the 3[rd] respondent expressed his inability to take an independent decision as directed by this Court in Ext.P7. Ext.P11 is the order. According to the petitioner, Ext.P11 order is passed as dictated by the Government and hence there is no purpose in filing a revision petition. It is submitted that Ext.P11 is unsustainable. According to the petitioner, as per Exts.P1 and P2, Principal post is available and sanctioned in all Schools which were upgraded in the year 2014-15. Relying to the above Government order, the appointment of several incumbents who were promoted from the category of Headmaster are approved, is the submission. Ext.P12 is one WP(C).No.2255/2023 **8** of such an order produced. As far as the non- availability of work load in case of appointment of Headmistress as Principal, it is submitted that Ext.P13 judgment cover the issue. It is also submitted that the said position is upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Exts.P14, P15 and P16. Ext.P17 is the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court on this issue. Ext.P18 is produced to show that the Government issued similar order. Therefore it is submitted that Ext.P11 is unsustainable. The petitioner also relied on Ext.P19 order of the Apex Court. Hence this writ petition is filed with following prayers: - i. Call for the records relating to Exhibit P-11 and set aside the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. - ii. Declare that the Petitioner is entitled to get by transfer appointment approved as Principal in Viswabharathi Model Higher Secondary School, Kappilmukku with effect from 01.06.2020. - iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3[rd] Respondent to approve the appointment of the Petitioner as Principal made in the light of Exhibits P-12 to P-18 and WP(C).No.2255/2023 **9** forthwith. - iv. To dispense with filing of English translation of vernacular documents produced along with the Writ Petition. - v. Pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case. _(SIC)_ 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned counsel for the 7[th] respondent. 3. A perusal of the Full Bench decision in **Aided Higher Secondary School Teachers Association’s case** (supra), it would be clear that the post of Principal is compulsory in the Higher Secondary Schools because, without the head of the institution, it cannot function. Ext.P2 will show that 125 posts of Principal were sanctioned in the Higher Secondary Section. This Court, as per Ext.P7 judgment, directed the 3[rd] respondent to take a decision in the light of the decisions of this Court on the relevant issue. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P7 WP(C).No.2255/2023 **10** ## judgment: “2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of the proposal for approval having been submitted as early as on 22.12.2021, the 2nd respondent has not issued any orders approving her appointment despite the absence of any other qualified person for appointment to the post of Principal in the Higher Secondary School. Petitioner relies upon Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 Government Orders as well as Ext.P15 judgment in **Jayaraj V.P and Another v. State** **of Kerala and Others** [2016 KHC 419]. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that 2[nd] respondent has been sitting over the application for approval, without passing any orders and resultantly petitioner is not even paid her salary even in the lower post of Headmistress from 22.12.2021 till date, causing great prejudice and hardship. 3. I have heard Sri.M.Sajjad, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Nisha Bose, learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. On a consideration of the submissions made across the bar and after perusing the pleadings, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of, directing the 2[nd] respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner as Principal as submitted by the 5th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention WP(C).No.2255/2023 **11** that, while considering the proposal, the 2nd respondent shall appreciate the binding Government Orders as well as the judgments of this Court on the relevant issue. 5. As far as the nonpayment of salary is concerned, irrespective of whether petitioner's appointment as Principal is approved or not, petitioner was admittedly serving as Headmistress of the Higher Secondary School before being appointed as Principal. Necessarily, she is entitled to get her salary in the said scale. 6. Hence, there will be a direction to the 3rd and 4th respondents to disburse the salary of the petitioner in the post of Headmistress pending consideration of the approval for appointment as a Principal. The disbursement of salary as directed above, shall be made within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 4. A perusal of Ext.P8 will show that **Jayaraj's case** (supra) was not considered by the 3[rd] respondent. Thereafter Ext.P9 judgment was delivered by this Court. In Ext.P9 judgment also, this Court directed to reconsider the matter afresh in terms of Ext.P7 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P9 judgment also: “3. I have heard Sri. M. Sajjad, the learned counsel WP(C).No.2255/2023 **12** appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. It appears from the records that it is pursuant to the orders passed by this Court as per Exhibit P15 judgment that Exhibit P16 order was passed. The only reason stated in Exhibit P16 is that there are no sufficient class periods for the petitioner in the subject. The question is whether the said order can be sustained. 5. This Court in _Jayaraj_ (Supra) had occasion to lay down as follows: “14. A qualified Headmaster, in the absence of anybody eligible from the other feeder category, would have to be appointed, de hors the fact that the same would create an additional post in the Higher Secondary Section. GO(MS) No. 290/06/G.Edn. then would apply. When a Headmaster is promoted as Principal in the Higher Secondary section, then if there are HSST’s available for all the subjects; then the junior-most HSST in that subject would be continued as supernumerary. When the Higher Secondary Section does not have the subject of the Head Master promoted, then he shall be exempted from teaching 16 hours.” 6. In the light of the law laid down by this Court in Exhibit P17 judgment, the 2[nd] respondent was not justified in issuing Exhibit P16 order. Furthermore, I find that while passing the said order, the respondent did not advert to the directions issued by this Court in Exhibit P15. I also find that, in tune with the law laid down by this Court in Exhibit P17 judgment, Exhibits P18 to P22 orders have been issued by the Government holding that a qualified Headmaster would have to be appointed as Principal under the 2:1 ratio dehors the fact that HSSTs WP(C).No.2255/2023 **13** are available for all subjects. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Ext.P16 will stand quashed. There will be a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of directions issued by this Court in Exts. P15 and P17 judgments and by following Exts. P18 to P22 Government Orders. Appropriate orders shall be passed as per procedure and in consonance with law, expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the 2[nd] respondent to ensure compliance.” 5. Thereafter Ext.P10 order was passed in R.P.No.732/2022 directing the 3[rd] respondent to hear the 7[th] respondent also at the time of hearing. Thereafter Ext.P11 order is passed. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P11: ' ശ�മത�. അന�തയ�യ� റ�വ� യ�റ�ഷണറ�� ശ�. പഭ�ത�യനയ� ഈ ഓഫ�സ�ല നനര�ല ന�ട വ�ദഗത **�** ള �ര�ന$�ധ�ചത�യ' അട�സ�നത�ല� വ�$,ഭ�രത� ഹ�ര യസക'റ� സ കള�ല ശ�മത�. അന�ത എ. യ **�** . �ഠ�പ�കനത�നള ��ര ഡ�ള ഇല�തത�യ' അട�സ�നത�ല� ശ�മത� അന�ത എ യയട പ�നസ�പല തസ **�** ��ല ന **�** മ�ച അ�ഗ **�** �ര� നല�ണയമന ആവ$@� �ര�ഗണ�ക�ന ന�രA�ഹമ�ല�തത�ന�ല ന�രസ�ച WP(C).No.2255/2023 **14** ഉതരവ�കന. ഇപ��ര� 22.06.2022 ത **�** ത **�** �യF W.P.(C) 20286/22-നമര റ�ട ഹരI **�** �നJലള വ�ധ�ന@��വ� 05.08.22 ത **�** ത **�** �യF റ�വ� യ�റ�ഷന നമര 732/22 -ലള ഉതരവ� ��F�ച .' യ��ളന 6. I am surprised to see such an order ignoring the directions in Ext.P9 judgment. I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P11 will not stand in the light of Ext.P9 and other several judgments referred in this writ petition. Another reason mentioned now for rejecting the proposal for Principal is about the availability of the post of Principal. As evident by Exts.P1 and P2, Principal post is available and sanctioned in all schools which were upgraded in the year 2014-15. Ext.P12 is an order passed by the Government in a similar situation. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P12: '7. സരരര്‍ക്കാര ഇരര്‍ക്കാരരര്യം വവിശദമര്‍ക്കായവി പരവിശശര്‍ക്കാധവിച. 21/08/2017-ലല ജവി.ഒ. (എര്യം.എസസ)നര്യം.106/17/ലപര്‍ക്കാവവിവ പ്രകര്‍ക്കാരര്യം, തവിരുവനന്തപുരര്യം പനയ മുട്ടപ്പലര്യം എസസ.എന.വവി.ഹയര ലസരണ്ടറവി സസ കൂളവിനസ WP(C).No.2255/2023 **15** ഈ പ്രവിനസവിപ്പല്‍ തസവിക അനുവദവിചവിട്ടുലണ്ടനസ വരക്തമര്‍ക്കാണസ. സര്‍ക്കാഹചരരതവില്‍, ശശ്രീമതവി.സവിന്ധുവവിലന്റെ പ്രവിനസവിപ്പല്‍ നവിയമനര്യം മറ്റുവവിധതവില്‍ ക്രമപ്രകര്‍ക്കാരലമങവില്‍, 01/12/2019 മുതല്‍ അര്യംഗശ്രീകരവിചസ നല്‍ല്‍കുനതവിനസ ലപര്‍ക്കാതുവവിദരര്‍ക്കാഭരര്‍ക്കാസ ഡയറക്ടരരസ നവിരശര്‍ദ്ദേശര്യം നല്‍കവി, അപ്രകര്‍ക്കാരര്യം WP(C)No.3597/2022 ശകസവില്‍ ബഹ. ഹഹശരര്‍ക്കാടതവി 24/05/2022 -ല്‍ പുറലപ്പടുവവിച വവിധവിനരര്‍ക്കായര്യം നടപ്പവിലര്‍ക്കാരവി ഉതരവസ പുറലപ്പടുവവിക്കുന.' 7. Ext.P2 is the Government Order mentioned in Ext.P12. The same Government Order is relying by the petitioner also. Therefore, ground mentioned in Ext.P11 to the effect that, Principal post is not there will not stand. The second objection is regarding the non availability of the work load in case of appointment of Headmistress as Principal. Such a workload need not be looked into while granting statutory promotion to the post of Principal. This Court considered this point in **Jayaraj V.P. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [2016 (2) KLT 200]** . Ext.P13 is the judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment: “14. A qualified Headmaster, in the absence of anybody WP(C).No.2255/2023 **16** eligible from the other feeder category, would have to be appointed, de hors the fact that the same would create an additional post in the Higher Secondary section. G.O.(MS) No.290/06/G.Edn. then would apply. When a Headmaster is promoted as Principal in the Higher Secondary Section then if there are HSST's available for all the subjects; then the junior most HSST in that subject would be continued as supernumerary. When the Higher Secondary Section does not have the subject of the Headmaster promoted, then he shall be exempted from teaching 16 hours.” 8. This was quoted in Ext.P9 judgment. Similar issue was considered by this Court in Exts.P14 to P17 judgments also. Ext.P18 is another Government Order by which the approval is granted for appointment of Principal. Therefore, according to me, Ext.P11 will not stand. 9. Admittedly, the 7[th] respondent, who is an HSST is not qualified for the post of Principal. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled promotion. The finding in Ext.P11 cannot be accepted at all. At this juncture, it will be beneficial to extract the relevant portion of the order of the Apex Court in WP(C).No.2255/2023 **17** ## Ext.P19. “ We are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition, as much as we find even as per Rules, for appointment to the post of Principal under Rule 3 of the Kerala Higher Secondary Education State Service Rules, 2001 (for short, t _he 2001 Rules'), two methods of appointments have been provided, the said Rule 3 is set out below:-_ _"Appointment - Appointment to the categories shall be made as follows:_ _S. No. Category Method of Appointment ______________________________________________ 1 2 3_ Principal 1. By promotion from category 2 and 2.By transfer from qualified Headmaster of High Schools Kerala Genera _l Education Services._ _Note: The posts shall be filled up by the methods specified in item (1) and (2) above in the ratio 2:1. are not available for appointment to a vacancy by any one of the methods specified above, such vacancies shall be filled up by the other method."_ _Under Rule 5 of the 2001 Rules, the qualifications have been prescribed for appointing a person to the post of Principal. Such qualifications and the method of appointment has been specified in the following terms:-_ _“5. Qualifications - No person shall be eligible for appointment to the category mentioned in column (2) in the table below under methods specified in column (3) unless he possesses qualification prescribed in the corresponding entry in column (4) thereof :_ WP(C).No.2255/2023 **18** _S. No. Category Method of Qualifications Appointment_ _______________________________________________ 1 2 3 4_ _1 Principal By Promotion (i) “Master's Degree with not_ - _less than 50% marks from any of the Universities in Kerala or equivalent thereto University in Kerala._ - _(ii) B.Ed. Degree from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto University in Kerala._ - _(iii) Minimum approved_ - _teaching experience of 12 years in the Kerala Higher Secondary Education State Service/ Kerala Higher Secondary subordinate Service._ _Note :-1. In the absence of persons having qualification as in the General specified above, teaching experience in Government Schools at High school/Upper Primary/Lower Primary Schools Education Service shall be considered._ _2. Such experience shall be reckoned only for qualifying Service and shall not be reckoned for Seniority. 3. Such persons must posses a minimum service of six Years as Higher Secondary School Teacher “(Senior/Junior)”_ _In the case on hand, admittedly, the person whom the petitioner wants to appoint did not satisfy the qualifications prescribed. In such circumstances, the petitioner will have to go in for the alternate method prescribed, both, under Rule 3 and Rule 5 of the 2001 Rules. It is stated that the petitioner has resorted to appointment of present incumbent as an incharge and to support the said appointment No.161/2004/G.Edn dated reliance is placed 14.6.2014. Inasmuch upon G.O. (MS) as the Rules specifically prescribe the qualifications for the post of Principal and also the_ WP(C).No.2255/2023 **19** _method by which such post can be filled up, the petitioner cannot be permitted to appoint unqualified persons to man the post of Principal for any indefinite period even as an incharge, even assuming that the G.0. dated 14.6.2014 can be permitted to be relied upon. We say so, inasmuch as, we are of the considered opinion that the said G.O. which conflicts with the Rules, in particular, Rule 5 cannot be held to have validly substituted the substantive Rule which in no uncertain terms prescribe the qualifications for the post of Principal._ _In the said circumstances, if the petitioner is not in a position to promote any of its existing teachers falling under Category 2 of Rules 3 and 5, the petitioner should resort to an alternate method of appointment, namely, by seeking for transfer of a qualified Headmaster of other High Schools in the Kerala General Education Services. Therefore, we only direct the petitioner to go in for the appointment of fully qualified teacher as Principal of the School by considering any of the existing teachers who satisfy such qualifications as prescribed under Rule 5 or in the alternate to go in for transfer from qualified Headmaster of High Schools in the Kerala General Education Services. In order to ensure that the petitioner appoints a qualified teacher at the earliest point of time, we direct the petitioner to make such appointment in accordance with the Rules, within three months from today and till such time whosoever is appointed as incharge shall be permitted to continue._ _With the above observations and directions, the special leave petition stands disposed of.”_ 10. Admittedly, there is no other qualified hands except the petitioner. In the light of the above order and also in the light of Exts.P13 to P17 judgments and also Ext.P18 order of the Government, I am of the opinion that Ext.P11 is to be set aside. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following WP(C).No.2255/2023 **20** manner : 1) Ext.P11 is set aside. 2) It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to get by transfer appointment and approval as Principal in Viswabharathi Model Higher Secondary School, Kappilmekku w.e.f. 01.06.2020. 3) The 3[rd] respondent is directed to pass consequential order in the light of the observation in this judgment as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** JV/SKS WP(C).No.2255/2023 **21** The date “01.06.2020” occurring in direction (2) of last paragraph of judgment dated 13.03.2023 in WP(C) No. 2255/2023 is corrected and substituted as “22.12.2021” as per order dated 11.08.2023 in I.A.No.5/2023 in WP(C) 2255/2023.” SD/JOINT REGISTRAR WP(C).No.2255/2023 **22** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2255/2023** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |Exhibit P-1|TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN REPORTED IN| |---|---| ||2005 KHC 19 = 2005 (1) KLT 94 DATED| ||04.11.2004 (AIDED HIGHER SECONDARY| ||SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION V. STATE OF| ||KERALA)| |Exhibit P-2|TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) NO. 106/2017/G.EDN| ||DATED 21. 08.2017| |Exhibit P-3|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B5/17331/2020| ||DATED 24.01.2021 OF THE DEO, MAVELIKKARA| |Exhibit P-4|TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)NO.5829 /| ||2021/G.EDN. DATED 13.12.2021| |Exhibit P-5|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE MANAGER| ||ADDRESSING THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR| ||OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,| ||CHENGANNUR, DATED 22.02.2022| |Exhibit P-6|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF| ||THE PETITIONER DATED 22.12.2021| |Exhibit P-7|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)| ||NO. 14709/2022 DATED 18.05.2022| |Exhibit P-8|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE| ||REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER| ||SECONDARY EDUCATION, CHENGANNUR, VIDE| ||ORDER NO. 6443/C3/2021/ RDD/CNGR DATED| ||06.06.2022| |Exhibit P-9|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.| ||20286/2022 DATED 22.06.2022| |Exhibit P-10|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.P NO.| ||732/2022 DATED 05.08.2022| |Exhibit P-11|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.| ||6443/C3/2021/RDD/ CNGR DATED 01.12.2022| ||OF THE RDD| |Exhibit P-12|TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO.| ||4726/2022/G.EDN DATED 12.08.2022| |Exhibit P-13|TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN| ||2016 KHC 419 = 2016 (2) KLT 200 DATED| ||26.02.2016 (JAYARAJ V.P AND ANOTHER V.| ||STATE OF KERALA)| |Exhibit P-14|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO 2373-| ||2019 DATED 15.03.2021| WP(C).No.2255/2023 **23** - Exhibit P-15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.15972017 DATED 06.04.2018 - Exhibit P-16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.22032012 DATED 14.08.2013 - Exhibit P-17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. NO.20757-2022 DATED 10.01.2023 - Exhibit P-18 TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO. 1260/2019/G.EDN DATED 01.04.2019 - Exhibit P-19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APEX COURT IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL NO. 31167/2014 ) DATED 15.12.2014 - Exhibit P-20 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 01.02.2023 |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit R7(a)|The true copy of relevant parts of the| ||Government Order with No Go(ms) No14 /| ||2019 /GEd, dated 06/02/2019,| |Exhibit R7(c)|The true copy of order with No| ||10835/C1/RDD/CNGR, dated 29/03/2018| |ExhibitR7(d)|The true copy of order with| ||No10634/C8/2019/RDD/CNGR, dated| ||11/12/2019| |Exhibit R7(e)|The true copy of order with No 825| ||/C8/2018 /RDD/CNGR, dated 31/05 /2018| |Exhibit R7(f)|The true copy of statement of| ||relinquishment of the petitioner dated| ||22-12-2017| |Exhibit R7(g)|The true copy of order with No 4729| WP(C).No.2255/2023 **24** /C8/2019/RDD/CNGR, dated 10/01 /2020 Exhibit R7(h) The true copy of order with No 8898 /C8 /RDD /CNGR, dated 13-11-2018, issued by the 3rd respondent Exhibit R7(h)a The true retyped copy of Exhibit R7(h) Exhibit R7(i) The true copy of Judgment dated 04/12/2018 in WA No 2341/2018 Exhibit R7(j) The true copy of order with No. Go(ord)No1416 /2022 /GEDN, dated 08-032022 Exhibit R7(k) The true copy of Government order with No GO(MS) No 290/2006/G.Edn, dated 0212-2006 ExhibitR7(b) The true copy of order with No 8660/C8/2017/RDD/CNGR, dated 17/11/2017 issued by the 3rd respondent