Sumadevi G. v. The Director Public Instruction, Office of the Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram; The Deputy Director of Education, Pathanamthitta at Thiruvalla; The District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla; The Manager, Sree Vivekananda High School (SV HS) Pullad; Jaya.R.; DevaJa B.; Sobhana B.; The State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Department of General Education

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.8634 OF 2012(D)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SUMADEVI G., AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. S.VIJAYAKUMAR, KRISHNAKRIPA, EAST OTHARA, THIRUVALLA (FROM NAKKARAMALAYIL PUTHENPURAYIL, EAST OTHARA, THIRUVALLA) (UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, S.V. HIGH SCHOOL, PULLAD).** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SRI.SHINDO VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,**| |---|---| ||**OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**| |**2**|**THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA-689 101.**| |**3**|**THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**THIRUVALLA-689 101.**| |**4**|**THE MANAGER,**| ||**SREE VIVEKANANDA HIGH SCHOOL (SV HS) PULLAD,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA-689 548.**| |**5**|**JAYA.R.,**| ||**JARENGH, KURUNGAZHA P.O., PULLAD (HIGH SCHOOL**| ||**ASSISTANT, S.V. HIGH SCHOOL, PULLAD)689 548.**| |**6**|**DEVAJA B.,**| ||**ANAKKUZHIKAL, KURAVANKUZHI P.O., PULLAD (UPPER**| ||**PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, S.V. HIGH SCHOOL, PULLAD)-**| ||**689 548.**| **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012 2** **7 SOBHANA B., SHAJI NIVAS, COLLEGE ROAD, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA (UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, S.V. HIGH SCHOOL, PULLAD)-689 654. 8 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY ADVS. R1 TO R3 & R8 - SRI. JESTIN MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 - SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY R5 TO R7 - SRI. V.A. MUHAMMED** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.11.2019, THE COURT ON 26.11.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, an Upper Primary School Assistant (U.P.S.A) in SV High School, Pullad, seeking to quash Ext.P27 order passed by the State Government in a revision filed under Rule 92 of Chapter-XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules (K.E.R), declining the claim raised to appoint the petitioner in the post of Upper Primary School Assistant (U.P.S.A)/High School Assistant (H.S.A), on the basis of Rule 51A claim under Chapter-XIV-A K.E.R, and other related orders passed by the educational authorities. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner had entered aided school service in SV High School, Pullad, belonging to the 4[th] respondent, which is an individual educational agency, in a short term vacancy as High School Assistant (H.S.A)(SS) during the period from 17.06.1996 to 26.03.1997. The said appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla, 3[rd] respondent herein, and she was disbursed with salary and allowances, evident from Ext.P1 appointment order. Thereafter, petitioner was again appointed as H.S.A (SS) during the period from **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012 4** 02.06.1997 to 30.03.1998, which was also approved by the 3[rd] respondent, evident from Ext.P2 order of appointment. 3. Later, petitioner was appointed as H.S.A (SS) during the period from 01.06.1998 to 30.03.1999 and from 01.06.1999 to 31.05.2002 by the Manager of the school, which was also approved by respondent No.3 and disbursed with salary and allowances, evident from Exts.P3 and P4. She was appointed again from 31.03.2002 to 30.05.2004 in continuation of her previous appointment by respondent No.4, evident from Ext.P5 order dated 31.03.2002. Case of the petitioner is that, thereafter, a regular vacancy had arisen in the school of the 4[th] respondent and petitioner was appointed in the said regular vacancy with effect from 02.06.2004 onwards. It was approved by the District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla. While so, there occurred a division fall during the academic year 200506 and the petitioner was retrenched from service from the post of H.S.A (SS) by respondent No.4 with effect from 15.07.2005. In view of the approved appointments of the petitioner as H.S.A (SS), she was entitled to be conferred with the preferential treatment under Rule 51A, Chapter-XIV-A K.E.R in respect of future vacancies **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** **5** for which she was qualified. 4. It is also submitted that, in the meantime, Rule 51-A was amended as per S.R.O No.638/2005 introduced by Ext.P6 Government Order bearing (P)No.187/2005/G. Edn. dated 17.06.2005, published in the Gazette dated 25.06.2005, making it clear that Rule 51A claim will be applicable to future vacancies in the same higher or lower category of teaching posts for which the concerned teacher was qualified, which would arise in schools under the same educational agency. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Rule 51A, Chapter-XIV-A K.E.R as amended by Ext.P6 Government Order would entitle her to be accommodated as aided school teacher either in the same, higher or lower category of teaching post that would arise in the school being managed by respondent No.4. Accordingly, respondent No.4 was bound to provide her accommodation as aided school teacher in any one of the vacancies of High School Assistant/Upper Primary School Assistant that was existing at the time of her retrenchment on 15.07.2005, or those vacancies that had arisen thereafter in the school. 5. According to the petitioner, two retired vacancies of U.P.S.A had arisen in the school. The **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** **6** Headmaster of the school has retired from service on 31.03.2010, and the seniormost H.S.A has been promoted as Headmaster of the school, and as a result of the same, a regular vacancy of U.P.S.A had arisen in the school. Similarly, one Sri. R.Rajasekharan, H.S.A (PS) had retired from service on 31.03.2010 and in that retirement vacancy also, a seniormost U.P.S.A, the Rule 43 claimant had to be promoted. By virtue of the same, another sanctioned vacancy of U.P.S.A had arisen in the school from the commencement of the new academic year onwards. In view of the supremacy settled as per amendment to Rule 51A, petitioner was entitled to be accommodated in any one of the vacancies taking into account her seniority in service. 6. When there was delay in the matter of considering her grievances by the District Educational Officer, on the basis of the representation/petition submitted by the petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17232 of 2010, which was disposed of as per the judgment dated 07.06.2010, directing the D.E.O to consider and pass orders on the representation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It was further directed that any appointment made in the ## **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** **7** meanwhile to be subject to the decision on the representation, evident from Ext.P9. 7. A personal hearing was conducted on the basis of the directions issued by this Court and Ext.P10 order was passed, directing the Manager to give appointment to the petitioner as U.P.S.A against the vacancy that arose with effect from 01.06.2010. However, no action was initiated. In that view of the matter, petitioner has approached the Director of Public Instruction and the Deputy Director of Education, Thiruvalla and Pathanamthitta respectively, and submitted Ext.P11 representation. Later filed W.P. (C) No.28693 of 2010, and respondent No.4 produced an order dated 16.09.2010 issued by the District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla to consider the appointment of the petitioner as U.P.S.A against the vacancy that arose with effect from 01.06.2010, evident from Ext.P12. Accordingly, Ext.P13 order was passed by this Court, directing the Manager to make appointment. 8. In compliance of Exts.P10, P12 and P13 orders, the Manager has issued Ext.P14 order dated 25.11.2010, by which petitioner was appointed as U.P.S.A in the school. However, while issuing Form No.27 appointment order, the Manager did not mention the vacancy in which ## **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** ## **8** the petitioner was appointed as U.P.S.A with effect from 01.06.2010, evident from Ext.P15. Thereupon, when orders were made for approval of the appointment, the District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla had rejected the approval as per Ext.P16 order dated 29.12.2010. Aggrieved, Ext.P17 appeal was preferred before the Deputy Director of Education against the said order, along with Ext.P18 representation. Since there was delay in disposing of the appeal, petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5079 of 2012, which was disposed of as per Ext.P19 judgment, directing the Deputy Director of Education to consider and pass orders on the appeal. 9. Since the direction in the judgment was not complied with, later a contempt case was also preferred and while the contempt case was pending, petitioner has been served with an order dated 01.08.2012 issued by the Manager, retrenching the petitioner from service with effect from 01.06.2010, on the basis of an order dated 15.06.2012 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, apparently in Ext.P17 appeal preferred by the petitioner. Case of the petitioner is that, no such order was ever served on the petitioner. Consequently, juniors to the petitioner in service ## **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** ## **9** viz., respondents 5 to 7 are allowed to continue, which, according to the petitioner, is _per se_ violation of the provisions contained in Ext.P6 Government Order dated 17.06.2005, introducing amendment to Rule 51A of Chapter-XIV-A K.E.R. The consequential orders are produced by the petitioner as Exts.P20 to P22 respectively. 10. Thereafter, petitioner filed a revision before the Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram, which was directed to be disposed of as per Ext.P23 judgment dated 10.08.2011 in W.P.(C) No.21389 of 2011. The 1[st] respondent, in accordance with the directions, has passed Ext.P24 order dated 19.11.2011, holding that there were no vacancies available to accommodate the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has approached the State Government, i.e., the 8[th] respondent by preferring a revision under Rule 92 of Chapter-XIV-A K.E.R and secured Ext.P26 judgment in W.P.(C) No.131/2012, directing the State Government to dispose of the revision after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The State Government after hearing all the parties, have passed Ext.P27 order, declining the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. It is thus challenging the said order, this writ petition **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** **10** is filed. 11. The 4[th] respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, on account of fall in student strength and division fall, petitioner was retrenched from service with effect from 15.07.2005. Thereafter, she was appointed as a U.P.S.A from 01.06.2010, as per court orders, but it was not approved for want of vacancy and the appointment had to be terminated once again for want of approval by the Educational Authorities. When compared to the petitioner, respondents 5 to 7 had approved service for much longer periods of time, which are as follows: _“(i).Smt. Jaya R. : Approved Service U.P.S.A from 22.07.96 to 31.05.2005: Promoted HSA(Mal) 01.06.05 to 14.7.2010 : Reverted U.P.S.A 15.07.2010 onwards._ _(ii). Smt. Devaja B. U.P.S.A Approved Service from 25.06.1997 onwards. (iii). Smt.Sobhana B. U.P.S.A from 14.07.1997 to 14.07.2004 From 01.06.2005 onwards”._ 12. Therefore, according to the Manager, there was no attempt on the part of the Manager to induct strangers in any regular vacancies overlooking the ## **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** ## **11** claims of the petitioner, as alleged. The other allegations made against the Manager are all denied. That apart, it is pointed out that, though there arose a vacancy in the post of U.P.S.A in 2010-2011, there had been reduction of posts in High School Section and senior teachers from the High School Section had to be reverted and accommodated in the vacancy of U.P.S.A. That apart, 3 posts in the High School Section had been reduced due to fall in number of divisions. One among the said posts had been adjusted against the promotion vacancy of one Smt. Sujatha, HSA, who had been promoted as Headmaster. Thereupon, Smt. R.Jaya, H.S.A (Malayalam), i.e., the 5[th] respondent, was adjusted by reverting her against the vacancy of Smt. Sindhu C., UPSA who had been promoted as H.S.A (PS) in the retirement vacancy of Sri. P.S.Rajasekharan. The teacher who was reverted from H.S.A (Hindi) viz., Smt. Anila Kumari T.L., had been reverted as LG (Hindi) teacher with effect from 01.10.2010. 13. Therefore, it is submitted that, though the petitioner is a Rule 51A claimant and is entitled to appointment if there is a U.P.S.A vacancy, the three vacancies of U.P.S.A available were filled up by teachers who were seniors to the petitioner who had to ## **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** ## **12** be accommodated in preference to the petitioner. The facts and figures show that there was no open vacancy of U.P.S.A to accommodate the petitioner. But, pursuant to the directions of the District Educational Officer, as per Ext.P13 order issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.28693 of 2010, petitioner was appointed as U.P.S.A and the appointment order was submitted for approval; but without specifying the vacancy, since there was no open vacancy available. Therefore, the contention advanced by the 4[th] respondent is that, there was no deliberate refusal to indicate the nature of vacancy as is contended by the petitioner. 14. Fact remains, the District Educational Officer later rejected the appointment and refused approval for want of vacancy. It is also submitted that, petitioner has since been appointed as Cluster Coordinator in the Thottapuzhassery Cluster by the Government under the teachers package, evident from Ext.R4(a) order dated 19.06.2012 of District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla, and the petitioner is getting salary accordingly. 15. The 3[rd] respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, justifying the stand adopted in the orders of the educational authorities and the Government. **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** **13** 16. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondents 5 to 7, refuting the claims raised by the petitioner against them, and justifying the orders passed by the educational authorities. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the respective counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 18. The basic contention advanced by the petitioner is relying upon the amendment made to Rule 51A to Chapter-XIV-A K.E.R and claims that petitioner has a superior claim over others so far as the future vacancies are concerned. The educational authorities as well as the Government considered the question raised by the petitioner bearing in mind the said vital aspect pointed out by the petitioner, and held that, during 2005-06, two posts of H.S.As were reduced. One H.S.A (Maths) and one H.S.A (SS) and two teachers were surplus and the junior teacher viz., the petitioner H.S.A (SS) was to be retrenched from service with effect from 15.07.2005. It is true that two retirement vacancies of U.P.S.A had arisen in the school. The Headmaster of the school, viz., Smt. V. Shobha, has retired from service on 31.03.2010, and thereupon, the **14** ## **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** seniormost H.S.A has been promoted as Headmaster of the school and as a result of the same, a regular vacancy of U.P.S.A had arisen in the school. 19. Similarly, one Sri. Rajasekhjaran, H.S.A (PS) retired from service on 31.03.2010, and in that retirement vacancy also, a seniormost U.P.S.A, the Rule 43 claimant had to be promoted. By virtue of the same, another sanctioned vacancy of U.P.S.A had arisen in the school from the commencement of the new academic year onwards. In view of the superior settled Rule 51A claim of the petitioner, she was entitled to be accommodated in any one of the vacancies taking into account her seniority in service. However, during 2009-10, there has been reduction of one division in Standard 10, and one Smt. K.Sudhakumari, H.S.A (NS) is adjusted by applying 1:40 ratio, and simultaneously, the 5[th] respondent H.S.A (Mal.) and Smt. Anila Kumari T.N., H.S.A (Hindi) were also adjusted against 1:40 ratio. 20. During the year 2010-11 also, three posts of HS section of the school have been reduced due to fall in number of class division and one each post of H.S.A (NS), H.S.A (Mal.) and H.S.A (Hindi) were reduced. The reduction of H.S.A (NS) has been adjusted in the ## **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** ## **15** promotion vacancy of Smt. Sujatha, H.S.A promoted as Headmaster. The reduction of H.S.A (Mal.) was adjusted by reverting the incumbent who has been working in the post of Smt. R. Jaya as U.P.S.A against the vacancy of Smt. Sindhu C., U.P.S.A promoted as H.S.A (PS) in the vacancy of P.Rajasekharan, retired on 31.03.2010. The reduction of H.S.A (Hindi) post was adjusted in the vacancy of Smt. Anilakumari T.L., who was reverted as LG (Hindi) teacher with effect from 01.06.2010. 21. After examining the case in detail, it was held that, even though the petitioner was appointed in a regular vacancy of H.S.A (SS) on 01.06.2004, and her appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer, she had to be retrenched on 15.07.2005 on the basis of staff fixation order consequent to various factors. Even though three vacancies have arisen in the post of U.P.S.A as on 01.06.2005, i.e., 2 permanent posts and one leave vacancy, which ought to have been ordinarily provided to the petitioner on the basis of her claim under Rule 51A, but the three vacancies had to be filled up by three teachers who were senior to the petitioner. It was accordingly that petitioner has been considered as retrenched teacher and accommodated in the teachers' bank. ## **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** ## **16** 22. Having assimilated the legal situations and the factual circumstances discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that, the educational authorities as well as the State Government have considered the case of the petitioner taking into account the various factual inputs and the claim raised by the petitioner on the basis of the amended Rule 51A of Chapter-XIV-A K.E.R. The discussion made above would make it clear that, due to various reasons adverse to the petitioner, the vacancies occurred in the U.P.S.A had to be adjusted so as to accommodate the seniormost teachers who were seniors to the petitioner, especially due to division fall in the High School Section. In my considered view, even though Rule 51A was amended and the claimants thereunder were provided with protection against the future vacancies, it cannot be said that, that is intended to overlook the claim of the senior continued in the school. 23. There is no dispute for the petitioner that in the vacancies arose in the school, teachers appointed were not the seniormost teachers. The facts and figures shown above also show that the persons who are appointed in the vacancies arose in the Upper Primary division of the school was filled up with the ## **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** ## **17** seniormost teachers who had to be accommodated due to the division fall in the High School section. Therefore, I am convinced that the educational authorities have taken into account the entire factual and legal circumstances put forth by the petitioner, and it was found that even though petitioner is a Rule 51A claimant entitled to get appointment against any future vacancies consequent to the amendment made to Rule 51A, petitioner could not be accommodated since the Manager had to comply with the relative Rules of the K.E.R to accommodate the seniors. Moreover, there is no _malafides_ or any other such circumstances attributed by the petitioner against the Manager of the school or the educational authorities in the matter of making appointments. The educational authorities including the State Government have provided sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it was assigning sufficient reasons, the claim raised by the petitioner was rejected. 24. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgments of this Court in ' _**Jannet Varghese v. State of Kerala and Others**_ ' [2006 KHC 818 : 2006 (3) KLT 435] and ' _**Sunitha K. v. State of Kerala and Others**_ ' [2016 KHC 2919 : 2016 (1) ## **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** **18** KLT SN 28], to canvass the proposition of amended Rule 51A, I am of the considered opinion that, those judgments were rendered taking into account the factual circumstances arising in those cases and in ' _**Jannet Varghese'**_ ( _supra_ ), it was held that, in the teeth of the clear words of Rule 43 after the amendment, it is clear that the right conferred on an employee to be promoted to a higher post is subject to the right available to the claimant under Rule 51A. Similar is the circumstance in the case of ' _**Sunitha K.'**_ ( _supra_ ). Paragraph 5 in ' _**Jannet Varghese'**_ would prove that, which read thus: _“_ _**5** . The further question to be considered is as follows:_ _A vacancy of UPSA and a vacancy of HSA have arose on the same day. It was the vacancy of UPSA, which was offered to the petitioner vide Ext.P7, about which the petitioner had reservations as articulated in Ext.P8. A vacancy of HSA also arose on the same day. Sri. Kurian George Kannamthanam appearing on behalf of the respondent Manager would contend that the petitioner was offered the post of UPSA recognising the claim under R.51A and she cannot have a claim for the post of HSA. He would also contend that in a situation where a vacancy has arisen in them same post and also in a lower or a higher post, the choice should be that of the Manager in view of the amendment effected to R.51A of Chap.14A. Prior to the amendment brought about by Ext.P10, it is trite law that a claimant under R.51A could invoke the said provision only in regard to a vacancy in the same post. This principle no longer holds good after the amendment effected by Ext.P10 with effect from 16.04.2005. After the date of amendment,_ **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** **19** _the right of the claimant under R.51A is not limited to the same post, which he was holding previously. He has a right to claim a vacancy either in a lower or in a higher post also. The question that arises in this case is in view of the fact, namely that a post of UPSA and HSA arose on the same day, whether the petitioner can stake a claim under the said provision in regard to the post of HSA.”_ Therefore, I am of the view, the proposition laid down thereunder would not fit to the facts and figures involved in this case, and accordingly clearly distinguishable. 25. In that view of the matter, I do not think petitioner has made out any case justifying interference in the order impugned. So also, it is evident that the vacancies arisen prior to the amendment of the Rule on and with effect from 25.06.2005 had to be filled up in accordance with the unamended Rules. Therefore, retrenchment of the petitioner cannot be said to be bad, since the petitioner at that point of time or later was not entitled to make any superior claim on the basis of the subsequent amendment made. 26. This question was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in ' _**Manager, Chentrapinni Secondary School and Another v. State of Kerala and**_ _**Others**_ ' [2009 (2) I.L.R 258], and held that, vacancy ## **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** ## **20** which arose prior to amendment to Rule 51A of ChapterXIV-A has to be filled up in accordance with the unamended rule irrespective of the date of filling up of the vacancy, and further that the claimant under Rule 51A can stake claim only to the vacancies in higher or lower category of teaching posts which have arisen after amendment of the rule on 25.06.2005. So much so, the subsequent vacancies had to be filled up with the senior teachers, and by no stretch of imagination, petitioner could have been accommodated, overlooking the seniority of the senior teachers, consequent to the division fall. 27. The residue of the discussion made above is that, petitioner has not made out any case of arbitrariness or illegality, justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **SHAJI P.CHALY** ## **JUDGE** **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** **21** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 17.6.1996 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND APPROVED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 2.6.1997 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND APPROVED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.1998 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND APPROVED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.1999 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND APPROVED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 31.3.2002 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING GO(P) NO.187/2005/G.EDN DATED 17.6.2005.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE HM OF THE SCHOOL INDICATING THE STATISTICS OF TEACHING STAFF IN SV HS PULLAD DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2005-06.** - **EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE HM OF THE SCHOOL INDICATING THE STATISTICS OF TEACHING STAFF IN SV HS PULLAD DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2006-07.** - **EXHIBIT P7(B) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE HM OF THE SCHOOL INDICATING THE STATISTICS OF TEACHING STAFF IN SV HS PULLAD DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2007-08.** - **EXHIBIT P7(C) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE HM OF THE SCHOOL INDICATING THE STATISTICS OF TEACHING STAFF IN SV HS PULLAD DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2008-09.** - **EXHIBIT P7(D) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE HM OF THE SCHOOL INDICATING THE STATISTICS OF TEACHING STAFF IN SV HS PULLAD DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10.** |**W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012**|**22**| |---|---| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**| ||**15.4.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**| ||**BEFORE RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 3 (EXCLUDING**| ||**ANNEXURE).**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.6.2010**| ||**THUS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO**| ||**17232/2010-D.**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A2/7176/10**| ||**DATED 31.8.2010 OF RESPONDENT NO.3.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**| ||**3.9.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 AND**| ||**2.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.9.2010**| ||**PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2010 IN**| ||**WPC NO.28693/2010.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2010**| ||**PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 APPOINTING THE**| ||**PETITIONER AS UPSA.**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 27 APPOINTMENT ORDER**| ||**DATED 30.11.201 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4.**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2010**| ||**PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 17.1.2011**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE**| ||**RESPONDENT NO.2 AGAINST EXT.P16 ORDER.**| |**EXHIBIT P18**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**| ||**6.1.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE**| ||**RESPONDENT NO.1.**| |**EXHIBIT P19**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.3.2011**| ||**PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.**| ||**5079/2011.**| |**EXHIBIT P20**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.6.2011**| ||**PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.**| |**EXHIBIT P21**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.8.2011**| ||**PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4.**| |**EXHIBIT P22**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.8.2010 OF**| ||**RESPONDENT NO.3.**| **W.P.(C)No.8634 of 2012** **23** **EXHIBIT P23** **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.8.2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.21389/2011.** **EXHIBIT P24** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2011 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.** **EXHIBIT P25** **TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 6.12.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.8 (EXCLUDING ANNEXURE)** **EXHIBIT P26** - **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.1.2012 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 131/2012.** **EXHIBIT P27** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO (RT) NO. 978/2012/G.EDN DATED 29.2.2012 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 19.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE DEO, THIRUVALLA.** **EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST AS ON 1.1.2010 OF THE SCHOOL AND APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER FINALLY DATED 19.3.2011.**