Mar Thoma College for Women, Perumbavoor v State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 21973 OF 2009** ## **PETITIONER:** THE MANAGER,MAR THOMA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL ## **RESPONDENTS:** |1|STATE OF KERALA| |---|---| ||REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,| ||DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM| |2|THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT| ||DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT| ||SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.| |3|THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION| ||VIKAS BHAVAN, P.M.G.JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM| |4|THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY| ||EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.| |5|THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY| ||REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS| ||PO,KOTTAYAM.| |6|P.N.JAYASREE| ||HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER, GOVERNMENT HIGHER| ||SECONDARY SCHOOL, PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM| ||DISTRICT.| ||BY ADVS.| ||DR.P.LEELAKRISHNAN, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY| ||SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY| [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE - SC, SMT. RESMI THOMAS – GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).14473/2011, 30575/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 14473 OF 2011** ## **PETITIONER:** P.N.JAYASREE, PART TIME LECTURER DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, MAR THOMA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN,, PERUMBAVOOR, NOW ON DEPLOYMENT AS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER, MGM GHSS NAYATHODE. BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE MANAGER MAR THOMA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN,, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM-682 011. 4 THE MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ATHIRAMPUZHA,, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 562. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.BABU VARGHESE SR. SRI.JOHNSON T. JOHN SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY DR.P.LEELAKRISHNAN, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE - SC, SMT. RESMI THOMAS – GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).21973/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 30575 OF 2009** ## **PETITIONER:** P.N.JAYASREE, PART TIME LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, MAR THOMA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, PLERUMBAVOOR, NOW ON DEPLOYMENT AS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER, GOVERNMENT H.S.S,, PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 4 THE MANAGER, MAR THOMA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542. 5 THE PRINCIPAL MAR THOMA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SRI.KAPPILLIL ANILKUMAR [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 6 SMT. RESMI THOMAS – GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).21973/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 7 ## **JUDGMENT** The issues in controversy are common in these three cases and therefore, are being disposed of together. 2. Smt.P.N.Jayasree, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30575/2009 and W.P. (C)No.14473/2011, was initially appointed as a Part-time Lecturer in the services of 'Marthoma College for Women', Perumbavoor (hereinafter referred to as the 'College' for short). Subsequent to the delinking of Pre-Degree Courses from Colleges, the petitioner was deployed to a Government School and subsequently, the Government issued an order, dated 22.07.2009, ordering that she be redeployed to the services of the College. This order was issued by the Government taking note of the judgment obtained by Smt.P.N.Jayasree in [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** W.A.No.589/2008, in which, it was affirmatively declared that she was a valid claim holder at the time when Pre-Degree Course was delinked and that she was correctly deployed to a Higher Secondary School, thus being entitled to salary. 3. The College challenged the afore order, as also the subsequent one, dated 01.07.2009 - copies of which have been produced in W.P.(C)No.21973/2009 as Exts.P12 and P13 respectively. 4. The specific contention of the College is that Smt.P.N.Jayasree could not have been redeployed to their services, since she was only a Part-time Lecturer and not a Junior Lecturer (Pre-Degree); and further that she was not in service on the relevant cut-off date, which is 24.04.1997. They further asserted that [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 9 Smt.P.N.Jayasree has been teaching only at the Plus Two level prior to the issuance of Ext.P12 order in W.P.(C)No.21973/2009 and hence that she is not competent to handle the classes at the Degree and PG levels. They argue that, subsequent to the Government Order dated 22.2.2005 – produced as Ext.P10 along with W.P(C)No.21973/2009, Government ought to have amended the Special Rules to accommodate Higher Secondary teachers like the petitioner, instead of redeploying them to the Colleges; and that by such redeployment, the provisions of the applicable Scheme of the University Grants Commission (UGC) would be frustrated. They thus pray that Exts.P12 and P13 in W.P. (C)No.21973/2009 be set aside and to declare that Smt.P.N.Jayasree is not entitled to be redeployed to their College. [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 10 5. I have heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned counsel for Smt.P.N.Jayasree; Sri.Arun Thomas – learned counsel appearing for the – College the petitioner in W.P(C)No.21973/2009; Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the MG University and Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 6. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned counsel for Smt.P.N.Jayasree, submitted that none of the contentions of the College are now relevant because every issue involved in these cases have been decided by a learned Division Bench of this Court in **Manager** , **St.Thomas College v. State of Kerala and others** (WPC.No.21840/2009). He supplemented this argument saying that, in any event, the petitioner's claim and her right to be redeployed , could not have been assailed [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 11 by the College subsequent to the judgment delivered in W.A.No.589/2008, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P4 along with W.P. (C)No.14473/2011. He vehemently contended that his client was fully eligible to be redeployed, as has been correctly found by the Government; and that her qualifications are also beyond question, since she was holding M.Phil at a time when the same was the requisite qualification for the post in question. 7. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan then argued that, therefore, consequent to the judgment of the learned Division Bench in **Manager, St.Thomas Colllege** ( _surpa_ ) **,** nothing survives in the writ petition filed by the College and that it is only liable to be dismissed. He thus prayed that this Court allow the writ petition filed by his client, particularly because she has now [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 12 retired from service and would only be entitled to the monetary benefits notionally, recognizing that she was eligible to be redeployed in the year 2009. He concluded his submissions pointing out that, pending these matters **,** a permanent vacancy arose in the College in 2011 and asserted that his client ought to have been accommodated to the same. 8. Sri.Surin Georege Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the MG University, affirmed that petitioner is educationally qualified to have been redeployed to the post of Lecturer, since she was an M.Phil holder, which was the eligible qualification at the relevant time, namely in the year 1996. He then argued that the unjustified intransigence of the College in refusing to abide by the directions of the Government has led to the [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** entire controversy in these cases and contended that this was unnecessary and without purpose, because the entitlement of Smt.P.N.Jayasree, to have been redeployed, could not have been raised by them after they had suffered Ext.P4 judgment produced along with W.P. (C)No.14473/2011. He argued that, therefore, WP(C)No.21973/2009 is without merit; while the writ petition filed by Smt.P.N.Jayasree deserves to be allowed. 9. Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader, submitted that since Smt.P.N.Jayasree is seeking the benefit of the Government Order bearing No.171/99/H.Edn., dated 21.12.1999 and all consequential benefits thereto, the matter will have to be considered by the competent Authority, particularly taking note of the subsequent developments including the judgment [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 14 of the learned Division Bench of this Court in **Manager,** _**St.Thomas College** (supra)._ She, added that she is making such submissions because there are issues as to whether Smt.P.N.Jayasree was entitled to full salary or that eligible under the applicable UGC Regulations. She thus prayed that this writ petition be allowed only on the afore terms. 10. I have evaluated the afore submissions on the touchstone of the various materials and documents available on record. 8. It is indubitable that the issues involved in this case have been answered by a learned Division Bench of this Court in **Manager,** ## _**St.Thomas College** (supra)._ 11 _._ That said, the status of Smt.P.N.Jayasree cannot be now contested by the College or by the Government since, in [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 15 Ext.P4 judgment produced along with WP(C)No.14473/2011, a learned Division Bench of this Court, as early as in the year 2008, declared that the only difference of a part- time teacher is that they are entitled to half the salary of a full-time teacher; and that Smt.P.N.Jayasree is a claimant under Section 62(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. After declaring as afore, the learned Division Bench then affirmatively concluded that Smt.P.N.Jayasree was a “valid claim holder” at the time when the Pre-degree Course was delinked and deployed to the Higher Secondary School and therefore, that she is entitled to her salary. 12. When these declarations have not been contested by any of the parties, one certainly fails to understand how the College takes the [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 16 stand that Smt.P.N.Jayasree was not qualified to be redeployed to their services, or that she did not have the educational qualifications under the relevant UGC guidelines. 13. Be that as it may, consequent to the judgment of the learned Division Bench in **Manager,** _**St.Thomas College** (supra),_ it is evident that the entire scenario has been clarified and that the claim of the petitioner will have to be considered by a competent Authority at the earliest. The validity of Exts.P12 and P13 orders in WP(C)No.21973/2009 will also have to be tested within the ambit of the said judgment, particularly because the Director of Higher Secondary Education had, as early as on 22.07.2009 - through Ext.P12, directed redeployment of Smt.P.N.Jayasree to [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 17 the services of the College. However, since the law at that time was amorphous and since the issues were in a state of flux; which has, however, been now concluded through the judgment of a learned Division Bench in **Manager,** _**St.Thomas College** (supra),_ I am certain that the afore exercise will have to be completed by the competent Authority. In the afore circumstances, I order these writ petitions, directing the competent Secretary of the Government of Kerala to hear the petitioner, as also the Manager of Marthoma College for Women, Perumbavoor, and take a decision on the claim of the former with specific reference to the contentions of the latter; thus culminating in an appropriate order with respect to the impact of the Government Order bearing No.171/99/H.Edn dated [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 18 21.12.1999, adverting to the judgment of a learned Division Bench in **Manager,** _**St.Thomas**_ _**College** (supra),_ as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, while the afore exercise is completed, the competent Authority will keep in mind that a regular vacancy is stated to have arisen in the College on 01.04.2011 and that the status of Smt.P.N.Jayasree had been declared by a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.589/2008 and connected matters, which has been subsequently reiterated in the judgment in R.P.No.134/2009 – the copies of which are available as Exts.P4 and P5 in WP(C)No.14473/2011. Needless to say, until such time as the [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 19 afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to both sides, the competent Authority will ensure that the College do not issue any notification for filling up the post in question. It further goes without saying that, depending upon the decision to be taken through the afore exercise, the eligible benefits to the petitioner will be disbursed within a period of four months from the date on which such a decision is taken and communicated to her. Sd/- ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** rp/SAS 20 [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14473/2011** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE| |---|---| ||UNIVERSITY SANCTIONING THE POST OF PART TIME| ||LECTURER IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT| ||ORDER| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ISSUED ORDERS TO| ||THE EFFECT THAT TEACHERS WHO ARE DECLARED| ||EXCESS ON THE WORKLOAD ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED| ||IN THE COLLEGE BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF| ||COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DATED 5.10.2000| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS)| ||NO.171/99/H.EDN. DATED 21/12/1999| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE| ||COURT IN W.A.NO.589 OF 2008 DATED 16.6.2008| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN R.P NO.134/2009| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SO PREFERRED| ||BY THE PETITIONER DATED 31.3.2011| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||11/04/2011 ISSUED BY THE MANAGEMENT| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.9.2002| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED WORK LOAD NORMS FOR| ||THE ACADEMIC YEAR 1995-1996 BASED ON THE| ||STUDENTS STRENGTH AS ON 01/11/1994.| |Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)NO.171/99/H.EDN. DATED| ||21/12/1999| [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 21 |Exhibit P11|TRUE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN| |---|---| ||W.PC NO.22060/2004| |Exhibit P12|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE| ||UNIVERSITY DATED 25/09/2000| |Exhibit P13|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE| ||MANAGER| |Exhibit P14|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE| ||PRINCIPAL| |Exhibit P15|TRUE COPY OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT| |Exhibit P16|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE| ||DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DATED| ||17/11/2008| |Exhibit P17|A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER ISSUED TO| ||THE PETITIONER BY THE MGM HSS, NAYATHODE| ||DATED 31/3/2022| |Exhibit P18|A TRUE COPY OF THE NON-LIABILITY CERTIFICATE| ||ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PRINCIPAL,| ||MGM HSS, NAYATHODE DATED 31/3/2022| |RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R2 A|TRUE COPY OF THE GO DATED 23.3.1990| |Exhibit R2 B|TRUE COPY OF G.O. DATED 19.3.1994| |Exhibit R2 C|TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE| ||PETITIONER DATED 16.1.1996| |Exhibit R2 D|TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED| ||29.3.1996| |Exhibit R2 E|TRUE COPY OF RELIEVING ORDER DATED 31.3.1997| [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 22 |Exhibit R2|F|TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED| |---|---|---| |||31.3.1998| |Exhibit R2|G|TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED| |||31.3.1999| |Exhibit R2|H|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF| |||PETITIONER'S SERVICE BOOK| |Exhibit R2|I|TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REPLY DATED| |||19.6.2001 TO THE CLARIFICATION SOUGHT BY THE| |||RESPONDENT, GIVEN BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF| |||THE COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM.| |Exhibit R2|J|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.6.2001 GIVEN| |||BY REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY.| |Exhibit R2|K|TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM STAY DATED 4.8.2009| |||GRANTED IN WPC NO. 21973/2009.| |Exhibit R2|I|TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION| |||COMMITTEE WHICH MET ON 16.9.2014.| 23 [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30575/2009** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY SANCTIONING THE POST OF PART TIME LECTURER IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDER GOVERNMENT - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WORKLOAD NORMS APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY FOR THE ACADEMIC- YEAR 19951996 - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.10.2000 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT G.O(MS) NO.171/99/H.EDN. DATED 21/12/1999 - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO.589 OF 2008 DATED 16.6.2008 - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT IN R.P.NO. 134/2009 - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH IN C.C.C. 137/2009 - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.22060 OF 2004 - Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE PETITIONER FOR GETTING SALARY . - Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE SHOWING THE SALARY DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER FROM JANUARY 2012 TO DECEMBER 2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit R5 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO DATED 23.3.1990 [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 24 Exhibit R5 B TRUE COPY OF GO. DATED 19.3.1994 Exhibit R5 C TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16.1.1996 Exhibit R5 D TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 29.3.1996. Exhibit R5 E TRUE COPY OF RELIEVING ORDER DATED 31.3.1997 Exhibit R5 F TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 31.3.1998 Exhibit R5 Q TRUE COPY OF THE RELIVING ORDER DATED 31.3.1999 Exhibit R5 H TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF PETITIONER'S SERVICE BOOK Exhibit R5 I TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REPLY DATED 19.6.2001 TO THE CLARIFICATION SOUGHT BY THE RESPONDENT, GIVEN BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. Exhibit R5 J TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.6.2001 GIVEN BY REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 25 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21973/2009** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS |Exhibit P1||TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| |---|---|---| |||3.1.1996| |Exhibit P1|A|TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 19.3.1994| |Exhibit P2||TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER DATED| |||21.5.1996 GRANTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P3||TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 23.3.1990| |Exhibit P3|A|TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING SUBMITTED BY THE| |||6TH RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P3|B|TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 6.8.1998| |Exhibit P3|B|TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.30/96| |||H.EDN.DATED 12.2.1996| |Exhibit P4||TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED| |||29.3.1996| |Exhibit P4|A|TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED| |||31.3.1997| |Exhibit P4|B|TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED| |||31.3.1998| |Exhibit P4|C|TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED| |||31.3.1999| |Exhibit P5||TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE 6TH| |||RESPONDENTS SERVICE BOOK.| |Exhibit P6||TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 5.10.2000 FOR| |||MULATING THE SCHEME FOR DEPLOYMENT OF EXCESS| |||TEACHERS CONSEQUENT ON THE DELINKING OF PRE| [WP(C) Nos.21973/2009, 14473/2011, 30575/2009] 26 DEGREE COURSES. Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 15.10.01 ACCORDING SANCTION FOR DEPUTATION/DEPLOYMENT OF LECTURERS/JUNIOR LECTURER. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 19.6.2001 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 12.6.2001 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.2.2009 IN R.P. 134/09 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT DECISION. DATED 22.2.2005 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 7.2.2003 Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.7.09 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 1.7.2009 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT //TRUE COPY// P .A. TO JUDGE