WA Nos. 1472 & 1514 of 2017 (Smitha Paul v State of Kerala & Others)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **WA.No.1472 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 15688/2017 DATED 28-06-2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **SMITHA PAUL W/O BAIJU, HEADMISTRESS A.M.UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PUNNATHALA, (VIA) THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTON THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-69514** - **3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THIRUR-676101** - **4 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KUTTIPPURAM-679571.** - **5 MANAGER A.M.UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL PUNNATHALA, (VIA) THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT** WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:2:- **6 K.ALI LPSA, A.M.UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PUNNATHALA, (VIA) THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **R5 AND R6 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED R5 AND R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.SAJJAD R1 TO R4 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.B.VINOD** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-022020, ALONG WITH WA.1514/2017, THE COURT ON 20-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:3:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **WA.No.1514 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 18439/2017 DATED 28-06-2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/INTERESTED PARTY, NOT ARRAYED AS A RESPONDENT:** ## **SMITHA PAUL** **W/O.BAIJU, HEADMISTRESS, A.M.UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PUNNATHALA, (VIA) THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & PETITIONER IN WP(C):** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MALAPPURAM-676505.** - **4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676101.** WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:4:- - **5 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KUTTIPPURAM-679571.** - **6 K.ALI LPSA, A.M.UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PUNNATHALA, (VIA) THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.SAJJAD SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.B.VINOD** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-022020, ALONG WITH WA.1472/2017, THE COURT ON 20-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:5:- ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 20[th] day of May, 2020 ## _**Shaffique, J.**_ These two appeals have been filed by a teacher Smt.Smitha Paul challenging common judgment dated 28.06.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 15688/2017 and W.P.(C) No.18439/2017. She was the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15688/2017. She was not a party in W.P. (C) No.18439/2017 and hence she filed W.A.1514 of 2017 after seeking leave of the court. W.P.(C) No.18439/2017 was filed by Sri.K.Ali for implementing an order in his favour. The controversy related to the question as to whom among them was qualified to be appointed as Headmaster in the school. 2. The short facts of the case are as under; and for easy reference the documents are referred as exhibited in W.P.(C) No. 15688/2017, unless otherwise stated. Both Smt. Smitha Paul and Sri. K.Ali were working in an aided Upper Primary school. A post of Head Master became vacant on 21.04.2014 on retirement of one Sri. K.P.Sreedharan. The Manager appointed Smt. Smitha Paul as WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:6:- Headmistress with effect from 1.5.2014. The Assistant Educational Officer rejected the said proposal as she did not have the requisite test qualification under the Kerala Education Act and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. The Manager preferred an appeal which came to be rejected as per order passed by the District Educational Officer on 2/12/2015. Finally, the matter was taken up before the Government and by order dated 18/2/2017 (Ext.P10), the Government having observed that the qualification required for promotion to the post of Headmaster being 12 years of teaching experience and pass in Departmental Test and test of Kerala Education Act and Rules, or having attained the age of 50 years, since the appellant was only 44 years, she was not eligible to be appointed. As far as Sri.K.Ali was concerned, it was found that though he had completed 12 years' service and pass in Account Test (Lower), he did not have the test qualification of KER. It was found that Smt.Smitha Paul and Sri.K.Ali were not eligible. The Manager therefore withdrew the order promoting Smt.Smitha Paul as Headmistress on a finding that she did not have test qualification and was not qualified for promotion as Headmistress WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:7:- on 1/5/2014. Consequently, Sri. K.Ali, being the senior most teacher was appointed as Headmaster. Smt. Smitha Paul filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Government and other educational authorities _inter alia_ contending that she acquired the test qualification under Kerala Education Rules (KER) on 4/7/2017. The writ petition was later amended challenging Ext.P13 order dated 2/5/2017 passed by the Manager in consequence of Ext.P10 order of the Government. 3. The main contention urged by Smt.Smitha Paul, was that Sri.K.Ali though he had completed 12 years of service and passed Account Test (Lower), he did not acquire the qualification as prescribed under KER. Specific reference was made to Rule 18(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2011 Rules') to indicate that a person to be employed as Headmaster ought to have acquired the test qualification as prescribed under the KER. In so far as Sri.K.Ali had only passed the Account Test (Lower), he was not qualified to be appointed as Headmaster. Whereas she became fully qualified for being appointed as Headmistress, on WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 ## -:8:- 16/2/2015 by which date she passed the Account test as well as the KER test. 4. Sri.K.Ali in the meantime filed W.P.(C) No.18439/2017 seeking to implement Ext.P13 order of the Manager and challenging Government order dated 18/2/2017 (Ext.P10) wherein there was a finding that in the absence of acquiring qualification under the KER, he did not qualify to be appointed as the Headmaster. He also sought for a direction to declare that he is qualified for the post of Headmaster and also for a direction to the 5[th] respondent to approve his promotion as Headmaster with effect from 31/4/2014, the date of occurrence of vacancy with all consequential benefits. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that Sri.K.Ali is the senior-most teacher in the said school. The controversy is with reference to the acquisition of test qualification under the KER. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment came to a finding that Sri.K.Ali was qualified to be appointed as Headmaster at the time when the vacancy arose and therefore the action of the Manager was not illegal. However, it was WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:9:- observed that Sri.K.Ali cannot claim appointment from the date when the vacancy had arisen and his appointment can be effective only from 2/5/2017. A direction was therefore issued to the Assistant Educational Officer to pass orders on the proposal for his promotion as Headmaster w.e.f. 2/5/2017. 6. The main contention urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is based on Rule 18(1) of the 2011 Rules. Rule 18(1) reads as under:- _“18. Duties to be performed by Head Teacher and Teachers:(1) The Head Teacher shall be a person having a minimum of twelve years of teaching experience and possessing pass in such departmental tests and test on Kerala Education Act and Rules as may be specified in that regard. Provided that teachers in service shall be given time upto three years to pass the above tests_ ”. 7. As per Rule 18(1) of 2011 Rules, a Head Teacher should have a minimum of twelve years of teaching experience and possess pass in Departmental Test and Test on Kerala Education Act and Rules “as may be specified in that regard”. As per Rule 44 of Chapter XIVA Kerala Education Rules (KER), the appointment of Headmaster shall ordinarily be according to WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:10:- seniority from the seniority list prepared in accordance with the rules. Rule 45B further provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 45 and 45A, Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission shall be an obligatory qualification to the teachers for promotion as Headmasters of Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools. 8. The contention urged by the appellant is that Sri.K.Ali had not passed the test under KER as contemplated under Rule 18 of the 2011 Rules. Reference is made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in _**Saju Cherian & another v. Baby Paily & Others**_ (O.P.(KAT) No.259/2019) decided on 27/1/2020. The question considered in the said case was whether the test qualification specified in Rule 18(1) of the 2011 Rules is mandatory even for teachers who have completed the age of 50 years. After evaluating the respective contentions of the parties and after referring to the Government Order dated 6/3/2018 (Annexure A6), the Division Bench held at paragraphs 12 and 13 as follows: _“12. When three years time is provided for acquisition of test qualification, the proviso also has to be given due effect. Our_ WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:11:- _interpretation would be that when the Rule specifically provides for test qualifications, there can be no appointment/promotion made of persons who are not qualified in accordance with the Rule. Hence, after the specification made at Annexure A6, only persons who are test qualified can be considered for promotion and be included for selection. The unqualified senior teachers would be entitled to appear for the test and acquire the test qualifications within three years. On acquiring such qualification if any junior has been promoted earlier, within the three year period, the senior who qualified within that period would be entitled to seek promotion as Head Teacher on the basis only of his/her subsequent qualification within the three year period. In that circumstance the junior has to be reverted and the senior promoted as Head Teacher. The pay drawn by the Junior in the post of Head Teacher, in the interregnum would be his entitlement and the senior would be entitled to the higher pay and allowances, if at all there is any in the post of Head Teacher, only from his/her date of promotion._ _13. Otherwise, when an unqualified person is posted as Head Teacher and he/she does not qualify within the three year period or before his retirement which may occur within the three year period, the junior qualified teacher would be prejudiced insofar as not being given the higher post or the benefits attached to that post despite his satisfying every qualification as provided in the Rule. The unqualified senior would also get an unfair advantage of retiring with the higher pay, which is not intended by the proviso. On the other hand, if the senior acquires the test qualifications within the period, the junior who is also_ WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 ## -:12:- _qualified can raise no objection on his senior being then posted as Head Teacher on acquisition of qualification. The proviso only enables a teacher to acquire the qualification within three years and seek for the post of Head Teacher on acquiring the test qualification. It does not enable the State to make appointments in violation of the rule, by promoting a senior who is not qualified in accordance with the Rule. On such interpretation, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal's order has to be set aside to the extent it permits inclusion of unqualified persons above 50 years for the purpose of promotion. The age of 50 years as provided in Annexure A2 has no significance, since the exemption has been set aside and the benefit now available is only of that provided in the proviso to the rule. Even senior teachers below 50 years who are not qualified would not be entitled to be promoted, but they will have the benefit of the proviso if they acquire the qualification within three years. This benefit, teachers under 50 did not have, but will now be conceded with, by virtue of the proviso to Rule 18(1). We make it clear that the proviso has application only for three years from Annexure A6. Necessarily the promotions already made are to be reworked according to our interpretation”._ 9. Apparently, the issue projected in the present case had not been considered by the Division Bench in _**Saju Cherian**_ (supra). The Division Bench was considering the question relating to an appointment of a teacher as Headmaster when a fully qualified teacher was available. The question was whether an unqualified senior teacher could be promoted as Headmaster and WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 ## -:13:- thereafter acquire the test qualification within three years. The said judgment related to the interpretation of proviso to Section 18(1) and the consequences that may arise after 6.3.2018. The judgment did not consider the question as to the qualification that was required for appointment of a Headmaster with reference to the L.P. and U.P. Schools, prior to 6/3/2018. In fact, the controversy was at rest by the Government in its order dated 19/2/2018 in G.O.(MS) No.16/18/G.Edn., wherein it was decided to amend KER and to incorporate in Rule 45B that Headmasters in L.P. and U.P.Schools should also pass the test specified in Kerala Education Act and Rules. The said Government Order is extracted hereunder:- ## “ORDER _At present, promotion to the cadre of HM in Aided Primary Schools is being done as per Rule 45 B of KER Chapter XIV A. The qualifications prescribed for the promotion therein is a pass in Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Government vide order read as 1[st] paper above have introduced the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 and wherein the qualification for a Head Teacher is stipulated in Rule 18 (1) as having a minimum of twelve years of teaching experience and possessing pass in such departmental tests and test on Kerala Education Act_ WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 ## -:14:- _and Rules as may be specified in that regard. But no such notification has been issued so far._ _(2).The Kerala Administrative Tribunal has pronounced in OA read as 2[nd] paper that a notification as contemplated in Rule 18(1) of the RTE Rules specifying the Department Test and Test on KEA and Rules to be passed for promotion to the post of Head Teacher in Primary Schools should be passed within three months._ _(3).The matter was examined in detail. Promotions to the cadre of HM in Primary Schools are being made as per the Rule 45B of Chapter XIV A KER and the provisos thereunder. Therefore inclusion of any additional qualification for promotion to the cadre of Primary HM can be promptly met if provision for the same is added in that Rule of KER. In the circumstances, qualification stipulated in Rule 45 B (1) of Chapter XIV A of KER is hereby amended to the following extent:_ _"Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 45 and 45A, Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission with a pass in the test in KE Act and the KE rules shall be obligatory qualification to the teachers for promotion as HMs of LP and UP Schools"._ _Necessary statutory amendments, in KER will be made separately._ ” 10. The learned Government Pleader however had made a submission that the words “as may be specified in that regard” coming under Rule 18(1) in the Rules is not confined to the qualifications as specified in the KER, whereas it only gives an indication to the nature of test that is being conducted under the WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:15:- Kerala Education Act and Rules. But it is clear from the Government Order dated 19/2/2018 that the Government understood it in a different manner, and had thought of making an amendment to Rule 45B of Chapter XIV A of KER by incorporating an additional qualification to teachers being appointed as Headmaster of L.P. and U.P. Schools, that they should have the test qualification as prescribed under the Kerala Education Act and Rules. That apart, in a judgment dated 24/6/2014 in _**Krishnan K.K. Vs. State of Kerala and Others**_ in W.P.(C) No.14971/2014, a learned Single Judge of this Court had occasion to consider Rule 18(1) of 2011 Rules and it was held at paragraphs 4 and 5 as under: _“4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Rule 45(B) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education rules stipulates that a pass in Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission shall be an obligatory qualification for promotion as Headmasters of Lower Primary Schools and Upper Primary Schools. Sub rule (4) stipulates that teachers who have attained the age of 50 years shall stand permanently exempted from acquiring the qualifications specified in sub rule (1). By virtue of operation of sub rule (4) of rule 45(B) of Chapter XIV-A of the_ WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:16:- _Kerala Education Rules teachers like the party respondents herein who are aged 50 years are permanently exempted from passing the Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The Government have by the impugned order exempted the teachers who have completed the age of 50 years from possessing the qualification prescribed in rule 18(1) of the rules. Rule 18(1) of the rules does not in express terms stipulate that the Head Teacher shall be a person possessing a pass in a particular departmental test. It does not also in express terms stipulate that the Head Teacher should possess a pass in the Kerala Education Act and rules. On the other hand the stipulation in the rules is to the effect that a Head Teacher shall be a person possessing a pass in such departmental test and test on Kerala Education Act and rules “as may be specified in that regard”. If the words “as may be specified in that regard” had not been there in rule 18(1), the rules will then be prescribing the test qualifications. The Government did not when it framed the rules prescribe the test qualifications. The Government only stipulated in rule 18(1) of the rules that the Head Teacher shall possess a pass in such departmental test and test on Kerala Education Act and rules as may be specified in that regard. The petitioner has no case the Government have by a notification specified that a Head Teacher governed by rule 18(1) shall posses a pass in a particular departmental test or the test on Kerala Education Act and rules._ _5. In the absence of a notification specifying the departmental tests and also specifying a pass in the test on Kerala Education Act and rules as a qualification for appointment as Head Teacher, I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the petitioners that the impugned order is ultra vires the rules. The Government in my opinion misdirected itself when it issued the Government order dated 19.6.2004 and exempted the teachers_ WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 ## -:17:- _who have attained the age of 50 years from possessing the qualifications prescribed in rule 18 (1) of the rules. The Government lost sight of the fact that under the rules it had to specify the tests which a person aspiring to be appointed as Head Teacher should possess. If the expression “as may be specified in that regard” is taken to mean the prescription in the Kerala Education Rules, then also I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the challenge to the impugned orders. Rule 44 (A) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education rules stipulates that the Headmaster of an aided complete High School should possess a pass in the test on Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education rules and a pass in the Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Teachers who attain the age of 50 years are permanently exempted from acquiring the aforesaid qualifications. In the case of Headmasters of Lower Primary Schools, the stipulation in rule 45(B) of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education rules is to the effect that they should possess a pass in the Account Test (Lower). Teachers who attain the age of 50 years are permanently exempted from acquiring the said qualification. In such circumstances, in the absence of a separate notification by the State Government specifying the tests which a teacher aspiring to be appointed as Head Teacher should possess, I am of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the appointment of the party respondents._ ” 11. There is no dispute to the fact that Rule 18(1) covers all the head teachers in any type of schools. But when it was specifically stated that they should possess a pass in such departmental test and test on Kerala Education Act and Rules as WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:18:- may be specified in that regard, necessarily the provisions of KER relating to the qualification also requires to be considered while evaluating the rule with reference to the words “as may be specified in that regard”. The Government in fact considered this issue based on an order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal which finally resulted in Government order dated 19/2/2018. Once it is specified by the said Government order that the qualification stipulated under Rule 45B (1) should also contain the provisions for passing the departmental test, we have to proceed on the basis that until then, there was no such specification. However, in Ext.P10 order dated 18/2/2017, the Government arrived at a conclusion that Sri.K.Ali was not qualified since he had not acquired the KER qualification. The KER qualification at the relevant time was only a pass in Account Test (Lower). 12. Though the amendment has not come into effect, the Government Order dated 19/2/2018 can be treated as sufficient enough to ensure that Government had given clear specification regarding the acquisition of qualification for Head Teacher of L.P. as well as U.P. schools. WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:19:- 13. In _**Saju Cherian's case**_ (supra), the Division Bench was considering the impact of Rule 18(1) and its proviso where three years' time was granted to a teacher for acquiring the test qualification. In fact, in paragraph 4 of the said judgment, the Division Bench observed that “ _it is an admitted fact that by Annexure A6 dated 6/3/2018, the Government has prescribed that the Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for brevity) and a pass in the test in Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education Rules would be obligatory qualification for promotion of teachers as Headmasters of LP and UP Schools. Hence, as of now, there is a specification of the test qualifications required for promotion to the post of Head Teacher and the exemption granted is in conflict with the Rule. The Tribunal held so and we agree with the Tribunal_ .” By Annexure 6 order dated 6/3/2018, Government order dated 19/2/2018 was made applicable to Government L.P. and U.P. Schools as well. 14 The present is a case in which the vacancy had arisen on 21/4/2014 on retirement of one Sri.K.P.Sreedharan. At the relevant time, Smt.Smitha Paul was not eligible to be appointed WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:20:- as Headmistress whereas Sri.K.Ali, was the senior most teacher and had completed 12 year service and pass in Account Test (Lower). Smt.Smitha Paul acquired the test qualification only on 16/2/2015. Once a qualified teacher was available, the Manager could not have appointed any other person. Rule 18(1) of the 2011 Rules, only indicate that a teacher to be appointed as Head Teacher should have 12 years of teaching experience and possess pass in such departmental test and test on Kerala Education Act and Rules as may be specified in that regard. A learned Single Judge in _**Krishnan K.K.'s case**_ (supra) had occasion to consider what exactly is the meaning of the words “as specified in that regard” and it was held that in the absence of a notification specifying the departmental test and also specifying a pass in the test on Kerala Education Act and Rules as a qualification for appointment as Head Teacher, it cannot be stated that Rule 18(1) of the 2011 Rules contemplate acquisition of test qualifications mentioned for Head Teachers of High Schools and Training Schools, as provided under Rule 44B of Chapter XIV A of KER. When it is not in dispute that Smt.Smitha Paul had acquired the requisite test qualification only after the vacancy had arisen on WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:21:- 1/5/2014, in which event, going by the qualification of Headmaster during the relevant time as provided under Rule 45B of Chapter XIVA of KER, Sri.K.Ali ought to have been appointed. Going by the above discussion, even as on 2/5/2017, Sri.K.Ali was qualified, as the proposal to amend the qualification of L.P./U.P school Headmaster had come into effect only on 19/2/2018. In the result, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Appeals are therefore dismissed. **Sd/-** **A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **JUDGE Sd/MARY JOSEPH JUDGE** Rp WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:22:- ## **APPENDIX OF WA NO.1472/2017** **APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** |**ANNEXURE R5(a)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTERS**<br>**FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, JULY AND AUGUST**<br>**2017.**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE R5(b)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.7.2017**<br>**OF THE MANAGER ADDRESSED TO THE AEO.**| |**ANNEXURE R5(c)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.7.2017**<br>**OF THE MANAGER ADDRESSED TO THE DEPUTY**<br>**DIRECTOR.**| |**ANNEXURE R5(d)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.7.2017**<br>**ADDRESSED TO THE APPELLANT BY THE**<br>**MANAGER.**| |**ANNEXURE R5(e)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.5.2014**<br>**OF SRI.K.ALI 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE**<br>**MANAGER.**| |**ANNEXURE R5(f)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.3.2015**<br>**OF SRI.K.ALI ADDRESSED TO THE MANAGER.**| |**ANNEXURE R5(g)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.8.2015**<br>**OF SRI.K.ALI ADDRESSED TO THE MANAGER.**| |**ANNEXURE R5(h)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED**<br>**23.6.2016 OF SRI.K.ALI TO THE ASSISTANT**<br>**EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND THE ENDORSEMENT**<br>**THEREOF.**| |**ANNEXURE R5(i)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA**<br>**NO.1900/2014 DATED 25.6.2015.**| |**ANNEXURE R5(j)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA**<br>**NO.1097/2014 DATED 11.1.2016.**| |**ANNEXURE R5(k)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA**<br>**NO.775/2017 DATED 11.4.2017.**| WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017 -:23:-