Sindhu M. George v. State of Kerala and others

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` SINDHU M. GEORGE AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.T.M.GEORGE, HEAD MISTRESS, JAYAKERALAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PULLUVAZHY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683541, RESIDING AT THADATHIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683541, PH-9497280134. ``` ``` BY ADVS. ELVIN PETER P.J. K.R. GANESH SIDHARTH SUDHEER GOURI BALAGOPAL ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. ``` - `2 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, SRVHSS CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM-682011.` - `3 THE MANAGER JAYAKERALAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PULLUVAZHY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683541.` ``` 4MINI MATHAI, PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE, JAYAKERALAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PULLUVAZHY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683541. ``` ``` ADDL.5SUMITHA BINDU AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. JOSEPH SAMUEL.P., RESIDNG AT PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, VENGOOR P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683572. (ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18-01-2023 IN IA 1/2023 IN WP(C). ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA ADV.V.A.MUHAMMED R4 BY ADV.P.BENNY THOMAS R5 BY ADV.M.S.AMAL DHARSAN R3 BY ADV.M.SAJJAD ADV.B.ASHOK SHENOY ADV.D.PREM KAMATH ADV.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) ADV.ABEL TOM BENNY ADV.JYOTHISH KRISHNA GOVERNMENT PLEADER(GP-1) ADV.NOEL JACOB R1 AND R2 BY ADV.PREMCHAND R. NAIR ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## `JUDGMENT` The petitioner who is aggrieved by the denial of appointment as Principal in the Higher Secondary School managed by the 3[rd] respondent, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: - _“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records leading to Exhibit P15 order and quash the same;_ - _(i)(a) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P16 and P17 and quash the same;_ - _(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to forthwith appoint the petitioner as Principal of Jayakeralam Higher Secondary School in the vacancy which arose on 01/06/2021 and issue a further direction to the 2nd respondent to approve the said appointment and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner, including arrears of salary;_ - _(ii)(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner as Principal of Jayakeralam Higher Secondary school in the vacancy which arose on 01.06.2022 and issue a further direction to the 2[nd] respondent to approve the said appointment and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner, including arrears of salary;_ - _(iii) Declare the action of the 3rd respondent in not appointing the petitioner as Principal of the Jayakeralam Higher Secondary School in the vacancy which arose on 01/06/2021 and Ext.P15 order issued by the 2nd respondent is absolutely illegal, unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.;_ - _(iii (a) to declare that the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Ext.P16 order in appointing the 5th respondent as Principal with effect from 01.06.2022 overlooking the rightful claim of the petitioner to be appointed as Principal and Ext.P17 order issued by the 2nd_ ``` WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021 ``` ``` 4 ``` _respondent is absolutely illegal, unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India._ _(iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.”_ 2. The factual circumstances under which this writ petition submitted are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as HSA in High School Section of Jayakeralam Higher Secondary School to which the 3[rd] respondent was the Manager. The appointment was on 03.06.1996 as per Ext.P6 and the same was approved by the authorities concerned as well. While so, a vacancy has arisen in the Higher Secondary Section of the said School in the post of the Principal on 31.05.2021 consequent to the retirement of Sri.Jyothish Kumar S.. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, by virtue of the ratio of 2:1 fixed as per Note (iii) to Rule 4 of Chapter 32 of Kerala Education Rules, the petitioner was eligible to be appointed as the Principal, as the two earlier appointments of the Principals were filled up from the qualified HSSTs in the Higher Secondary School, namely Sri P.M. Thomas as the first appointee and Sri.Jyothish Kumar S, as the second appointee. The petitioner was also having all the necessary qualifications to be appointed as Principal. However, without considering the legitimate claims of the petitioner, the 3[rd] respondent Manager appointed the 4[th] respondent as the Principal. The challenge raised by the petitioner ultimately resulted in Ext.P15 order passed by the Government. Challenging Ext.P15, this writ petition was submitted. ``` WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021 ``` ``` 5 ``` 4. In this writ petition, earlier, an interim order was passed to the effect that, the appointment of the 4[th] respondent as the Principal, shall not be approved. During the pendency of this writ petition, the 4[th] respondent retired on 31.05.2022 and consequently, the 5[th] respondent was appointed as the Principal. The appointment of the 5[th] respondent was as per Ext.P16 order which was approved by Ext.P17. The writ petition was amended in such circumstances incorporating the challenge against Exts.P16 and P17 as well. 5. The learned Government Pleader filed a counter affidavit, against the averments made in the writ petition. In the counter affidavit, the Government raised a contention that, the petitioner could not have been accommodated in the Higher Secondary Section of the School, as there is no post for his subject, namely, Malayalam, available in the Higher Secondary Section. Therefore, it was contended that, if the petitioner is appointed, the teacher strength would be increased resulting in the retrenchment of the junior most teacher in the Higher Secondary Section of the School. Ext.R1(c), the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court was also relied on to substantiate the contentions. 6. The 4[th] respondent also filed a counter affidavit defending the impugned orders. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the 5[th] respondent. In the said counter affidavit, the 5[th] respondent placed reliance upon Ext.R5(b) ``` WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` Government Order bearing No.G.O. 52/2023/GEDN dated 03.05.2023, wherein it was insisted that, unless the subject of the person who is sought to be appointed as Principal, is available in the Higher Secondary Section, the appointment of the said person, as the Principal cannot be made. The 5[th] respondent also relied on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.2341/2018 which is the very same judgment produced by the Government in their counter affidavit as Ext.R1(c). 7. Heard Sri. Elvin Peter P.J., the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Premchand R. Nair, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State, Sri.M. Sajjad, learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent, Sri. P. Benny Thomas, learned Senior counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent and Sri. M.S. Amal Dharsan, learned counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent. 8. The crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the reason highlighted by the respondents for rejecting the appointment of the petitioner as Principal, that the vacancy of the HSST (Malayalam) is not available in the Higher Secondary Division to accommodate the petitioner, is legally sustainable or not. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in this regard is that, the position of law has been settled by this Court in various judgments rendered in this regard. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the decision rendered by a ``` WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` Division Bench of this Court in **Thomas v. State of Kerala** [(2013) 4 KLT 257]. Besides the same, the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.24712/2016, by a learned Single Bench of this Court which is produced as Exts.P11, and P12 judgment passed by this Court by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1597/2017 and W.A. No.2423/2017 were also relied on. The attention of this Court was also brought to the decision rendered in **Jayaraj v. State of Kerala** [2016 (2) KLT 200] by the Single Bench of this Court. On going through the observations made by this Court in **Thomas** (supra) it is to be noted that, this question was specifically taken into consideration, and it was categorically dealt with in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said decision which reads as follows: _“10. The further contention based on the notifications cited above that a Principal would be necessarily required to carry on the teaching duties, which a Headmaster of a High School would be disabled from, in the event of the candidate being not qualified to be appointed as a Higher Secondary School Teacher, also does not impress us, since such an interpretation would again render otiose the two methods of appointment clearly mentioned in the Rules. For one, the stipulation of a Principal being the academic head, does not necessarily contemplate teaching duties on the incumbent, since the academic matters in a school is not confined to teaching alone. In any event, the prescription of 16 hours teaching duty to a Principal is not as per the Rules and is as per the notifications cited above. The prescription in a notification cannot render ineffective or whittle down a statutory rule. It is also pertinent that the Government has thought it fit to bring out Exhibit P6 notification, which provides for retention of the junior-most teacher in a subject, in a supernumerary post, when a Headmaster, by transfer, is appointed as Principal. Such a prescription in a_ ``` WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021 ``` ``` 8 ``` _notification is intended with the object of the smooth implementation of the provisions of the Rules and are strictly in order._ _11. In the instant case, the 6th respondent is a Master's Degree holder and B.Ed., having teaching experience of 12 years in the High School Level under the Corporate Management. The 6th respondent amply satisfies the qualification provided for appointment as a Principal, by transfer, as provided under R.6 of Chapter XXXII KER. The order of the educational authority holding that the 6th respondent would not be qualified to take classes for higher seconder students is of no consequence, since the Government has provided, by virtue of notification, that the junior-most teacher would be retained in a supernumerary post so as to give the benefit to Headmasters of High Schools to occupy the post of Principal on the every third vacancy arising thereat.”_ In **Jayaraj** (supra) also, in paragraph 14 the following observations were made. _“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. 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 H.S.S.T.'s available for all the subjects; then the junior most H.S.S.T. in that subject would be continued as supernumerary. When the Higher Secondary Section does not have the subject of the Headmaster promoted, then shall be exempted from teaching 16 hours.”_ 9. Similar observations are there in Exts.P11 and P12 judgments as well. In all the aforesaid decisions, it has been categorically observed by this Court that, the fact that, there is no post available in the subject of the person to be appointed as the Principal, cannot be a reason to deny the legitimate right of the petitioner to be appointed, as the same is something flowing from the statutory provision in the Rule 6 read with Note (iii) of Rule 4 of Chapter ``` WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021 ``` ``` 9 ``` XXXII of Kerala Education Rules. It was also categorically observed that, even though such an appointment of the Principal may increase the Teacher strength in the said School, the same has to be addressed by converting the post of a junior most teacher in the said subject as a supernumerary. The facility for creating supernumerary posts was specifically contemplated in the Government Order bearing No.G.O.(MS) No.290/06/G.Edn dated 2/12/2006. 10. Of course, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent placed reliance upon the Ext.R1(c) judgment rendered by another Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.2341/2018. However, on going through the observations made in the said decision, it is to be noted that, when the said judgment was rendered by the Division Bench, the decisions rendered by other Division Benches of this Court in **Thomas** (supra), and also in Ext.P12 judgment produced in this writ petition namely judgment in W.A. No.1597/2017 were not brought to the notice of this Court. On going through the observations made in the Ext R1(c) judgment, it can be seen that the said observations were made in the particular facts of the said case and no detailed discussions were made with respect to the impact of the statutory provision in Chapter XXXII of the KER and the impact of the same on the rights of the parties, as observed in **Thomas** (supra) and Ext.P12 judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. ``` WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021 ``` ``` 10 ``` 11. In this regard, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsels for the 4[th] and 5[th] respondents raised a contention that, as per Ext R5(b), the GO.No 52/2023/G.Edn dated 3.05.2023, a contrary decision has been taken by the Government, by stipulating that, unless there are sufficient posts in the subject of the person to be accommodated as Principal, no such appointment by transfer, has to be given. It was also pointed out that, the G.O. (MS) No.290/06/G.Edn dated 2/12/2006, which facilitated the creation of supernumerary posts, was also cancelled as per the Ext R5(b). In response to the aforesaid contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that, the sustainability of the Ext R5(b) Government Order, was a subject matter before this Court in a recent decision rendered by another Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.16328/2023. After elaborately considering the observations made in **Thomas** (supra) and other decisions, this Court categorically observed in paragraph 13 thereof in the manner as follows: _“13. Ext.P8 virtually tinkers with the appointment to the post of Principal the ratio of 2:1 between the Higher Secondary School Teachers and the Headmasters. The Headmasters who are eligible to be appointed as Principal on the possession of the qualifications as prescribed in the Rules, in particular, Rule 6(1) and on their turn following the ratio prescribed under Note III to Rule 4(1) of Chapter XXXII KER. These conditions are tinkered with while passing Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 order clearly has the effect of amending the statutory provisions making the Headmasters who are otherwise eligible under the Rules ineligible. That apart, both the reasons mentioned in Ext.P8 as regards the aspect of teaching and financial_ ``` WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021 ``` ``` 11 ``` _commitments were expressly rejected in the judgments referred to above. The Government after suffering the judgment mentioned above, could not have attempted to come up with an order like Ext.P8 to get rid of those findings. Ext.P8 itself speaks of the proposal to amend the provisions concerned. In anticipation of the amendment, an executive order cannot have the effect of tinkering with the statutory prescriptions. By in Ext.P8 not only is the ratio prescribed in the Rules rendered unworkable, but also robs the Headmasters of the aided high schools of their only opportunity for appointment as Higher Secondary School Principal, besides unsettling the seniority of the Headmasters under the corporate management, even paving the way of unqualified teachers to be appointed as Principal in charge when a qualified Headmaster is available.”_ Thus, it is evident that, Ext.R5(b) Government Order which denied the appointment to persons, as Principal, in case there is no sufficient vacancy available to accommodate him an HSST in the Higher Secondary School, was set aside by this court. The learned Government Pleader submitted that a writ appeal has been submitted against the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.16328/2023, which is now pending consideration. After carefully going through the observations made by this Court in W.P.(C) No.16328/2023, I am in perfect agreement with the same. As rightly observed therein, the Government Order cannot take away the right vested upon the persons who are entitled to get an appointment, on the basis of the statutory provisions. Moreover, in **Thomas** (supra), this Court categorically upheld the right of the persons concerned, based on the statutory stipulations contained in Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of the KER, to get the appointment as Principal. In the light of ``` WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021 ``` `12` the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid decision which are binding on this Court, I am of the view that the right of the petitioner to get the appointment as Principal cannot be denied merely because of the reason that, there is no post in the subject of the petitioner in the Higher Secondary Section of the said School. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid decisions, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Principal, irrespective of the lack of vacancy to be accommodated in the Higher Secondary Section of the said school. Even though it may result in the creation of additional posts in the Higher Secondary Section, as held in **Thomas** (supra) and **Jayaraj** (supra) the same has to be remedied by converting the post of the junior most teacher in the subject, as a supernumerary. As regards the reliance placed upon Ext R1(c) decision rendered by this Court, it is to be noted that, the attention of this Court was not brought to the series of decisions rendered by this Court, both the Division Benches and Single benches, which are referred to above, wherein the consequences/legal effects of the statutory provisions and the rights of the parties concerned, flowing the from the same, were discussed detail. Therefore, in the light of the said decisions, the Ext.P15 order, rejecting the appointment of the petitioner is only to be set aside. Consequently, the appointments of the 4[th] respondent as well as the 5[th] respondent are also to be set aside as being a natural consequence of the setting aside of Ext.P15. ``` WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021 ``` `13` In the result, this writ petition is allowed by quashing Exts.P15, P16 and P17. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as the Principal from the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The 3[rd] respondent is directed to issue the proposal of appointment of the petitioner with effect from the date of occurrence of vacancy consequent to the retirement of Sri.Jyothish Kumar S., within a period of one month and thereupon the approval of the same shall be granted by the 2[nd] respondent with all consequential benefits. With the observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- ``` ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` scs ``` WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021 ``` ``` 14 ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19493/2021` |`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`Exhibit P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE MA (MALAYALAM) DEGREE`| ||`CERTIFICATE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER DATED`| ||`30.04.1999 BY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.`| |`Exhibit P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE MA SOCIOLOGY DEGREE`| ||`CERTIFICATE AWARDED BY MADURAI KAMARAJ`| ||`UNIVERSITY`<br>`DATED`<br>`09.03.2010`<br>`TO`<br>`THE`| ||`PETITIONER.`| |`Exhibit P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE STATE ELIGIBILITY TEST`| ||`CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF`| ||`KERALA TO THE PETITIONER DATED 21.08.2000.`| |`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS TEST (LOWER)`| ||`CERTIFICATE AWARDED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC`| ||`SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE PETITIONER.`| |`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE TEST ON KERALA EDUCATION ACT`| ||`AND RULES CERTIFICATE AWARDED BY THE KERALA`| ||`PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE PETITIONER.`| |`Exhibit P6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED`| ||`03.06.1996 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE`| ||`3RD RESPONDENT MANAGER.`| |`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/11396/19/DT.`| ||`DATED 31.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEO,`| ||`KOTHAMANGALAM.`| |`Exhibit P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED`| ||`14.03.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`| ||`MANAGER TO SRI.P.M.THOMAS, APPOINTING HIM AS`| ||`PRINCIPAL OF THE SCHOOL.`| |`Exhibit P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF`| ||`SRI.P.M.THOMAS AS PRINCIPAL BY THE 2ND`| ||`RESPONDENT DATED 05.06.2006.`| |`Exhibit P10`|`TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER`| ||`GO(RT)NO.2913/2021/G.EDN DATED 02.06.2021.`| |`Exhibit P10(A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER`| ||`GO(RT)NO.5014/2019/G.EDN DATED 21.11.2019.`| |`Exhibit P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2016 IN`| ||`WP(C)NO.24712/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.`| |`Exhibit P12`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.04.2018 IN`| ||`WA NO.1597/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.`| |`Exhibit P13`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED`| ||`24.05.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE`| ||`THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`| |`Exhibit P14`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.06.2021 IN`| ||`WP(C)NO.12574/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.`| |`Exhibit P15`|`TRUE`<br>`COPY`<br>`OF`<br>`THE`<br>`ORDER`| ||`NO.A2/4619/RDD/HSE/E.K.M/2021`<br>`DATED`| ``` WP(C) NO. 19493 OF 2021 ``` ``` 15 ``` ## `08.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.` ``` EXHIBIT P16TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 16.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS PRINCIPAL. EXHIBIT P17TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERNO. RDDHSE/EKM/1859/2023-A2 DATED 20.04.2023 APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS PRINCIPAL. ``` ||`RESPONDENT AS PRINCIPAL.`||| |---|---|---|---| |`RESPONDENT ANNEXURES`|||| |`EXHIBIT R5(A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS)`||| ||`NO.127/2021/G.EDN DATED 26/02/2021`||| |`EXHIBIT R5(B)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS)`||| ||`NO.52/2023/G.EDN DATED 03/05/2023`||| |`EXHIBIT R5(C)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/12/2018`||`IN`| ||`W.A.No.2341/2018 (K.S JOSEY BASTIAN V.`|`STATE`|| ||`OF KERALA ORS. 2018 KER 65513)`||| |`EXHIBIT R1(A)`|`TRUE`<br>`COPY`<br>`OF`<br>`THE`|`ORDER`|| ||`G.O(RT).NO.885/2022/G.EDN DATED 16/02/2022.`||| |`EXHIBIT R1(B)`|`TRUE`<br>`COPY`<br>`OF`<br>`THE`<br>`ORDER`|`GO(RT)`|| ||`NO.3759/2022/G.EDN DATED 25/06/2022.`||| |`EXHIBIT R1(C)`|`TRUE`<br>`COPY`<br>`OF`<br>`THE`<br>`JUDGMENT`||`IN`| ||`W.A .NO.2341/2018.`||| |`EXHIBIT R3(a)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Ms.) NO.11/06/G.Edn.`||| ||`DATED 06.01.2006`||| |`EXHIBIT R3(b)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2021(4)`||| ||`KHC 264 DECIDED ON 08.04.2021`||| |`RESPONDENT ANNEXURES`|||| |`Annexure R5(a)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/03/1999`||| |`Annexure R5(b)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/07/1999`|||