WP(C) Nos. 18470 of 2021 & 23774 of 2021, C. P Pushpaja v State of Kerala & ors; Vineetha K. T. v State of Kerala & ors

``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 1 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 25TH MAGHA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 18470 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` C.P.PUSHPAJA AGED 58 YEARS W/O. H. RATHNAKUMAR, RADHIKA, CHALODE, EDAYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670595.(RETIRED PRINCIPAL KOODALI HSS, P. O. KOODALI, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA) BY ADVS. T.T.MUHAMOOD A.RENJIT A.MOHAMMED SAVAD JAYENDRAN KOCHOTH V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, (HIGHER SECONDARY WING), HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY REGIONAL OFFICE, V9GC+5WX, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR, KERALA - 670002. 4THE MANAGER KOODALI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, P. O.KOODALI, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670595. 5K. T. VINEETHA SWATHI, NEAR KOODALI UP SCHOOL, P. O. KOODALI, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670595. (RETD PRINCIPAL, KOODALI HSS, P. O. KOODALI, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670595) ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BY ADV MURALI PALLATH ``` ``` SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).23774/2021, THE COURT ON 14.2.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 25TH MAGHA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 23774 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` VINEETHA K. T. AGED 56 YEARS W/O. SASIDHARAN P. M., RETIRED PRINCIPAL, KOODALI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOODALI P. O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670592, RESIDING AT 'SWATHI' NEAR KOODALI U.P. SCHOOL, KOODALI P. O., KANNUR DIST., PIN - 670 592. ``` ``` BY ADV MURALI PALLATH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT (ANNEXE II), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THYCAUD P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 3THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR, PAYYAMBALAM P. O., KANNUR DIST., PIN - 670002. 4THE MANAGER KOODALI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOODALI P. O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670595. 5C. P. PUSHPAJA W/O. H. RATHNAKUMAR, RADHIKA, CHALODE, EDAYANNUR P. O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670595. BY ADVS. T.T.MUHAMOOD V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR A.MOHAMMED SAVAD ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` NAZEER HUZAIN.H T.R.VISHNU G.P.SRI.K.M.FAISAL ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).18470/2021, THE COURT ON 14.2.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 5 ``` ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos. 18470 & 23774 of 2021 ----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of February, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** These two writ petitions are connected therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. I will narrate the facts along with the exhibits in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 for convenience. The petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021 is the 5[th] respondent in W.P.(C.) No.18470/2021. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021, Smt. C.P.Pushpaja, retired as the Principal from Koodali Higher Secondary school on 31.03.2019. Koodali Higher Secondary School is under the management of the 4[th] respondent, the Manager. The petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant (for short, “UPSA”) on 01.06.1988 and she was promoted as High School Assistant – Maths (for short, “HSAMaths”) on regular basis on 04.06.1990. When the Higher Secondary batch was commenced the petitioner was appointed by transfer as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Jr.) Maths (for short, “HSST (Jr.) Maths”) on 12.12.2011. The said appointment was approved as per Ext.P1 order. Thereafter, on the ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` upgradation of the post of HSST (Jr.) Maths as HSST (Maths), the petitioner was appointed as HSST Maths w.e.f 25.02.2013. The said appointment was approved by the 3[rd] respondent, the Regional Deputy Driector, Higher Secondary Regional Office, Kannur, as per Ext.P2 order. It is the case of the petitioner that she has completed 6 years of service in the cadre of HSST and HSST (Jr.) together on 11.12.2017. The petitioner is also has the qualification of Master's Degree in Maths and B.Ed. It is also the case of the petitioner that she has got 23 years of service as HSA and she has been exempted from acquiring SET qualification. Therefore, according to the petitioner she is fully qualified to be appointed as the Principal of the Higher Secondary School w.e.f 12.12.2017. When Smt.Geetha Chandroth who was working as the Principal-in-Charge of the school proceeded on leave on 15.02.2017, the petitioner was put in full additional charge of the Principal as there was no other qualified candidates available in the school. The petitioner continued as such till 29.05.2017. The said appointment was approved by the 3[rd] respondent as per Ext.P3 order. Smt.Geetha Chandroth retired from service on 31.05.2017. As on that date, it is the case of the petitioner that nobody was qualified to be ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` appointed as the Principal. The qualification for appointment to the post of Principal of the Higher Secondary School is provided in Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the, “KER”). It is the case of the petitioner that on 11.12.2017, the petitioner had completed 6 years of service in the cadre of HSST/HSST(Jr.) together. Therefore, the petitioner is fully qualified to be promoted as the Principal of the Higher Secondary School on 12.12.2017 is the contention raised in the writ petition. In anticipation of acquiring qualification on 12.12.2017, the petitioner submitted representation before the 4[th] respondent on 04.12.2017 requesting to appoint her as the Principal. According to the petitioner, she is the only qualified HSST in the school as on 12.12.2017 and no other HSST have become qualified to be appointed as Principal on that date. Therefore, the petitioner again submitted a representation before the 4[th] respondent on 06.03.2018. But, it is the case of the petitioner that overlooking the claims of the petitioner, who is the only qualified candidate as on 12.12.2017, the 4[th] respondent appointed the 5[th] respondent, Smt. K.T Vineetha as the Principal of the school w.e.f. 13.12.2017. According to the petitioner, the appointment ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 8 ``` of the 5[th] respondent is in total disregard to the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of Chapter XXXII of the KER. It is the case of the petitioner that the selection of Principal should be made on the basis of seniority cum suitability. It is the definite case of the petitioner that after the occurrence of vacancy, the petitioner alone has become qualified to be appointed as the Principal on 12.12.2017 and no other candidates were qualified as on 12.12.2017. 3. Aggrieved by the appointment of the 5[th] respondent as Principal, the petitioner submitted a representation before the 3[rd] respondent, specifically raising the point that the petitioner is the first person to became qualified for the appointment to the post of Principal after the date of occurrence of the vacancy. It is the case of the petitioner that she became qualified on 12.12.2017 whereas the 5[th] respondent became qualified only on a later date. Meanwhile, the 5[th] respondent submitted a request to shift the date of her initial appointment as HSST from 13.12.2011 to 12.12.2011. But the 2[nd] respondent, The Director General of Education Thiruvananthapuram rejected the said request as per Ext.P4 mainly for the reason that it is highly belated. Thereafter, on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 9 ``` challenging the appointment of the 5[th] respondent as the Principal, the 3[rd] respondent sought clarification from the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent as per Ext.P5 letter clarified that the petitioner has obtained 6 years teaching experience as on 12.12.2017 and she is the first HSST qualified to be appointed as the Principal and that she should be appointed as the Principal. Thereafter, the 3[rd] respondent issued Ext.P6 order rejecting the proposal for approval of the appointment of the 5[th] respondent as Principal and further directing the appointment of the petitioner as Principal. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 03.10.2018 in W.P. (C.) No.32139/2018, the parties were heard and the 3[rd] respondent issued Ext.P7 order, by which the Manager was directed to appoint the petitioner as the Principal w.e.f. 12.12.2017. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the 5[th] respondent filed W.P.(C.) No. 35691/2018 befoe this court. She also filed W.P.(C.) No.41573/2018 challenging the rejection of the proposal to shift the date of her initial appointment as HSST from 13.12.2011 to 12.12.2011. Meanwhile, based on the directions issued by the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondent in Exts.P5 to P7, the petitioner was appointed as Principal w.e.f. 12.12.2017 as ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 10 ``` per the order dated 31.10.2008. This Court considered W.P.(C) Nos.35691 and 41573 of 2018 together and as per Ext.P8 judgment directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner as the Principal holding that the petitioner is the HSST who first completed 6 years minimum teaching experience at Higher Secondary School level. This Court also directed to consider the representation submitted by the 5[th] respondent against the rejection of the request to shift the date of appointment from 13.12.2011 to 12.12.2011. The petitioner was due to retire on 31.03.2019 and since there was no action on the part of the 3[rd] respondent to approve the appointment as directed in Ext.P8 judgment, the petitioner filed CCC No.707/2019 and this Court as per the order dated 29.03.2019 directed the 3[rd] respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Principal forthwith. Pursuant to the same, as per Ext.P9, the petitioner's appointment as Principal was approved. Thereafter, the petitioner and the 5[th] respondent were heard by the 2[nd] respondent on the petition submitted by the 5[th] respondent regarding the shifting of the date of initial appointment as HSST from 13.12.2011 to 12.12.2011. The 2[nd] respondent as per Ext.P10 order was directed to take necessary action to approve ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 11 ``` the appointment of the 5[th] respondent as Principal w.e.f. 13.12.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P10 order was issued by the 2[nd] respondent in violation of Ext.P8 judgment. It is the case of the petitioner that in Ext.P8 judgment, this Court found that the petitioner is the HSST who first completed 6 years teaching experience which is a mandatory requirement for the promotion to the post of Principal and hence, her appointment is to be approved. Without following the same, Ext.P10 order was passed, is the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged Ext.P10 order by filing W.P.(C.) No. 12684/2019. The 5[th] respondent filed W.P.(C.) No. 14331/2019 against the non-consideration of her claim for the approval in the post of HSST from 12.12.2011. This Court as per Ext.P11 judgment held that going by note 3 to Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of KER, the service rendered by a teacher as HSST (Jr.) and HSST will have to be reckoned while computing qualifying experience of 6 years and therefore, this Court further held that based on the present approved date, the petitioner is the rightful claimant for the post of Principal. However, this Court remanded the matter to the 2[nd] respondent to consider the claim of Smt. Vineetha to shift her approval to ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 12 ``` the post of HSST w.e.f. 12.12.2011. It is the further case of the petitioner that in total violation of Ext.P11 judgment, the 2[nd] respondent issued Ext.P12 order by which the 2[nd] respondent held that Smt. Vineetha is entitled for approval as the Principal on 13.12.2017, the date on which she completed 6 years service in the cadre of HSST. It is the case of the petitioner that the said order has been issued completely disregarding the findings of this Court that the service rendered by teacher as both HSST (Jr.) and HSST will have to be reckoned while computing the qualifying experience of 6 years. According to the petitioner, while computing the qualifying experience, the service in HSST (Jr.) and HSST are to be reckoned. Aggrieved by Ext.P12, W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 is filed. The main prayers in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 are extracted hereunder : (i) “A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext:P12 order issued by the 2[nd] respondent. (ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to grant all the service benefits including the arrears of salary in the post of Principal w.e.f. 12-12-2017. (iii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to grant the pensionary benefits on the basis of approval as Principal w.e.f 12.12.2017. ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 13 ``` ## And Such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” [SIC] ## 4. W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021 is filed by the 5[th] respondent in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021. The main prayers in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021 is extracted hereunder : _i. “issue a writ of certiorari calling for records leading to Ext.P18 order and to set aside the same to the extent to which it rejects approval of appointment to the petitioner as HSST(Commerce) for one day on 12.12.2011._ _ii. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] and the 3[rd] respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as HSST (Commerce) from 12.12.2011 onwards instead of 13.12.2011._ _iii. declare that the decisions taken by the 2[nd] respondent in Ext.P18 that the petitioner is senior in the cadre of HSST to the 5[th] respondent and that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the cadre of Principal are legally valid._ _iv. Issue orders directing the 4[th] respondent to appoint the petitioner as Principal in Koodali HSS and direct the 3[rd] respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Principal on scale of pay with all consequential benefits w.e.f 12.12.2017_ _v. Any other writ or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in this case.” [SIC]_ ## 5. Ext.P18 in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021 is Ext.P12 in W.P. (C.) No. 18470/2021. ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 14 ``` 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions and the learned Government Pleader. 7. The counsel for the petitioners raised contentions based on their pleadings in the respective writ petitions. The Government Pleader on the other hand supported Ext.P12 order in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 which is Ext.P18 in W.P.(C) No. 23774/2021. 8. The short point to be decided in these cases is - who among the petitioners in these writ petitions was first qualified to be appointed as the Principal after the occurrence of the vacancy to the post of Principal. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 18470/2021 was appointed as HSST (Jr.) as per Ext.P1 order dated 12.09.2012. The petitioners in these writ petitions appeared before the selection committee for selection to the post of HSST and HSST (Jr.). The petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 was appointed as HSST (Jr.) as per Ext.P1 dated 12.09.2012. Ext.P1 in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021 will show that both the petitioners in these writ petitions were selected by the same selection committee. The petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021 was appointed as HSST as per Ext.P2 order in that case on 22.03.2013 with effect from 13.12.2011. The petitioner ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 15 ``` in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 was appointed as HSST(Jr) Maths w.e.f. 12.12.2011 and the said appointment was approved by the 3[rd] respondent as per Ext.P1 in her case. Subsequently, the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 was also appointed as HSST (Maths) w.e.f. 25.02.2013 and the said appointment was approved by the 3[rd] respondent as per Ext.P2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 completed 6 years of service in the cadre of HSST/HSST(Jr.) together on 11.12.2017. Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of KER deals with the qualification for the post of Principal. It will be better to extract Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of KER below: “Qualifications:- No person shall be eligible for appointment to the category in column (2) in the table below under the method specified in column (3) unless he possesses the Qualifications prescribed in the corresponding entry in column (4) there of. Sl. category Method of Qualification No. Appointment 1. Principal - By Promotion (1) Master's Degree with - not less than 50% marks from any Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any university in Kerala B.Ed. Degree from any Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any University in Kerala. Minimum approved teaching experience of 12 years at Higher Secondary Level under the same Educational Agency.” ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 16 ``` Note-1. In the absence of persons having qualification as specified above, approved teaching experience at High School/Upper Primary/Lower Primary School's under the same Educational Agency shall be considered. 2. Such experience shall be reckoned only for qualifying Service and shall not be reckoned for Seniority. 3. Such persons must possess a minimum Service of Six years as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Senior/Junior)”]” 9. If the service of the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 in the cadre of HSST and HSST(Jr.) is taken together, she has completed 6 years of service on 11.12.2017. The vacancy to the post of Principal arose on 01.06.2017. Who among the petitioner became the first to be qualified for the promotion to the post of Principal is the question to be decided in this case. But overlooking the claim of the petitioner in W.P. (C.) No. 18470/2021 , the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23774/2021 was appointed by the Manager as the Principal w.e.f. 13.12.2017 is the contention. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021. The petitioner in W.P. (C.) No. 23774/2021 submitted a request to shift the date of her initial appointment as HSST from 13.12.2011 to 12.12.2011. The same was rejected as per Ext.P4 stating that it is belated. Subsequently, the 3[rd] respondent sought clarification ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 17 ``` from the 2[nd] respondent based on the representation submitted by the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 for promotion. Ext.P5 produced in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 is the clarification letter issued by the 2[nd] respondent. It will be better to extract ## the relevant portions of Ext.P5 letter hereunder: 31/05/2017- "കൂടാളി, എചച.എസ്.എസ്-ല്‍ പ്രിന്‍സിപ്പാള്‍ ല്‍ റിട്ടയര്‍ ചെയ് മൂലം ഒഴിവ് ഉണ്ടായ സമയതത ശ്രീമതി. പുഷ്പജയക്ക ഹയര്‍ സെ ക്കന് ി തലത്തില്‍ 6 12 വര്‍ഷം സര്‍വ്വീസും (ജൂനിയര്‍ സീനിയര്‍) ഉള്‍പ്പെടെ കൂടാതെ വര്‍ഷത്തില്‍ അംഗീകൃത അധ്യാപന പരിചയവും നേടിയിട്ടുള്ളതായി 30/05/2018-ലെ കത്തില്‍ നിനന ബ ോധ്യമാവുന്നു. ആയതിനാല്‍ സ്‌പെഷ്യല്‍ റൂള്‍ പ്രകാരമുള്ള യയോഗ്യത നേടിയ ശ്രീമതി. പുഷ്പജയക്ക സര്‍വ്വീസ് സീനിയയോറിറ്റിയുടെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ പ്രിൻസിപ്പാൾ ന നിയമനത്തിനുള്ള അപേക്ഷ പരിഗണിക്കാവുന്നതാണെ ന ഇതിനാല്‍ അറിയിക്കുന്നു.” ## 10. Based on Ext.P5 letter, Ext.P6 order was issued by the ## 3[rd] respondent. It will be better to extract the relevant portions of Ext.P6 order hereunder : "(3) (5) വിഷയം സൂചന കത്തില്‍ മേൽ സംബന്ധിചചലഭിച്ച (1) നിര്‍ദേശത്തെ അടിസ്ഥാനമാക്കി സൂചന പ്രകാരം താങ്കള്‍ ശ്രീമതി. വിനീതകെ .ടി. യെ പ്രിന്‍സിപ്പലായിനിയമിചചനല്‍കിയ നിയമന അംഗീകാരത്തിനായുള്ള അപേ ക്ഷ നിരസിച്ചതായി . അറിയിക്കുന്നു (4) 12 6 ആകെ വര്‍ഷത്തെ അംഗീകൃതസര്‍വീസുംഇവയില്‍ വര്‍ഷത്തെ ഹയര്‍ സെ ക്കണ്ടറിസര്‍വീസുംഎച്.എസ്.എസ്.ടി. തസ്തികയിലുള്ള ആള്‍ക്കാണ് പ്രിന്‍സിപ്പല്‍ ആവാനുള്ളയ . യോഗ്യതയുള്ളത് (5) ജി.ഓ.പി. 93/2009/പ ൊ.വി.വ നമ്പര്‍ സ്പെ ഷ്യല്‍ റൂള്‍ ഭേദഗതി നിയമപ്രകാരമുള്ളയ യോഗ്യത ആദ്യം നേ ടിയത് ശ്രീമതി.പുഷ്പജ സി.പി. ആണെ ന്നതിനാല്‍ ടിയാരിയെ പ്രിന്‍ സിപ്പല്‍ തസ്തികയില്‍ നിയമിച നിയമനാംഗീകാരത്തിനുള്ള അപേ ക്ഷതാമസംവിനാസമര്‍പ്പിക്കാന്‍ താങ്കളോട്ഇതിനാല്‍ നിര്‍ ദേശിക്കുന്നു.” 11. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions issued by this ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 18 ``` Court in W.P.(C) No. 32139/2018, the parties were heard and the 3[rd] respondent issued Ext.P7 order. The relevant portions of Ext.P7 is also extracted hereunder : "ശ്രീമതി. വിനീത കെ.ടി.യെ പ്രിന്‍സിപ്പലായി നിയമിചച നിയമന അംഗീകാരത്തിനായി കൂടാളി ഹയര്‍ സെ ക്കണ്ടറി സ്‌കൂള്‍ മാനേജര്‍ സമര്‍പ്പിച്ച പ പ്പോസല്‍ ഈ ഓഫീസ് ഉത്തരവ് ഏ7/1116/2018 തീയതി 26/09/2018 അനുസരിചച നിയമാനുസൃതം നിരസിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതാണ്. ആയതിനാല്‍ ശ്രീമതി പുഷ്പജ സി.പി.യെ 12/12/2017 മുതല്‍ പ്രിന്‍സിപ്പല്‍ തസ്തികയില്‍ നോഷണല്‍ ആയി നിയമിചച നിയമനാംഗീകാരത്തിനായി പ പ്പോസല്‍ ഈ ഓഫീസില്‍ സമര്‍പ്പിക്കേണ്ടതാണ്. ഇതു പ്രകാരം ബഹു. കേരള ഹൈ ക്കോടതി വിധി നടപ്പിലാക്കി ഉത്തരവാകുന്നു.” 12. Ext.P7 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021 by filing W.P.(C.) No. 35691/2018. She also filed W.P.(C.) No. 41573/2018 challenging the rejection of the proposal to shift the date of her initial appointment as HSST from 13.12.2011 to 12.12.2011. As per Ext.P8 judgment, this Court directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 as the Principal by holding that the petitioner is the HSST who first completed 6 years minimum teaching experience at Higher Secondary Level. Consequently, Ext.P9 order was passed by appointing her as the Principal. Thereafter, the petitioners in these writ petitions were heard by the Director of General Education regarding the shifting of the date of initial appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23774/2021. Thereafter, Ext.P10 order was passed by the ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 19 ``` Director of General Education in which it was directed, to take necessary action to approve the appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021. Ext.P10 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 by filing W.P.(C.) No. 12684/2019. The petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021 also filed W.P.(C.) No. 14331/2019 against the non-consideration of her claim for the approval to the post of HSST from 12.12.2011. This Court as per Ext.P11 judgment found that as per note 3 to Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of KER, the service rendered by a teacher as both HSST(Jr.) and HSST will have to be reckoned while computing the qualificational experience of 6 years and therefore, this Court further held that based on the present approved date, Smt. Pushpaja, who is the petitioner in W.P(C.) No. 18470/2021 is the rightful claimant to the post of the Principal. But this Court remanded the matter to the Director of General Education again to consider the claim of the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 23771/2021 to shift her approval to the post of HSST w.e.f. 12.12.2011. It will be beneficial to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P11 judgment. “9. As is indubitable from the afore narration of facts, there are two broad issues involved in these cases . a) Whether Smt.Vineetha is entitled to be granted approval as ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 20 ``` HSST with effect from 12.12.2011; and b) Whether Smt.Pushpaja is entitled to count her service rendered as HSST (Jr), while reckoning her total period of six years of teaching service, to make her eligible to be appointed to the post of Principal. 10. On the second issue as afore, I have very little doubt in my mind that, going by the provisions of Note 3 to Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of the KER, the service rendered by a teacher as both HSST (Jr) and HSST will have to be reckoned, while computing the qualificational experience of six years. However, in the order impugned by Smt.Pushpaja and supported by Smt.Vineetha, the Joint Director has reckoned the service of two teachers only in the post of HSST, without giving credit to the service of Smt.Pushpaja in the post of HSST (Jr). Prima facie, this does not appear to be correct, going by the tenor of the above cited provision, which reads as under: - “6. Qualifications: No person shall be eligible for appointment to the category in column (2) in the table below under the method specified in column (3) unless he possesses the Qualifications prescribed in the corresponding entry in column (4) thereof. Note-1. In the absence of persons having qualification as specified above, approved teaching experience at High School/UpperPrimary/Lower Primary School's under the same Educational Agency shall be considered. 2. Such experience shall be reckoned only for qualifying Service and shall not be reckoned for seniority. 3. Such persons must possess a minimum service of six years as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Senior/Junior).” 11. That said, however, my above observations would not be sufficient to obtain a quietus to the controversy in these cases because, the competent Authority ought to have also decided whether Smt.Vineetha was entitled to be appointed as HSST with effect from 12.12.2011; because, if it is so found, then she ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 21 ``` will be justified in staking claim as being senior to Smt.Pushpaja. As I have said above, this aspect has not been considered by the Joint Director on its merits; but he has chosen to reject the recommendations made by the Manager in her favour, through an order dated 01.08.2018 - a copy of which has been appended as Ext.P13 in W.P(C)No.14331/2019 – solely for the reason that Smt.Vineetha had chosen to approach the Manager 4½ years later her approval had been granted. However, as is evident from Ext.P14 judgment in W.P(C)No.14331/2019, a learned Judge of this Court had already directed the Joint Director to verify whether Smt.Vineetha's claim for being approved with effect from 12.12.2011 ought to be acceded to, based on the applicable law. However, this has not been done in the resultant order issued by him. 12.In the afore circumstances, it would not be possible for this Court to enter into an affirmative finding as regards the rival claims of the two teachers; and am certain that the Joint Director must reconsider the matter, adverting to my observations above, as also which are contained in Ext.P14 judgment produced along with W.P(C)No.14331/2019. Resultantly, I allow these writ petitions and set aside Ext.P10 in W.P(C)No.12684/2019; with a consequential direction to the Joint Director of Higher Secondary Education to hear both teachers, as also the Manager of the School and take a decision on both the aspects afore recorded, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, it is clarified that the Joint Director must consider the claim of Smt.Vineetha for being approved from 12.12.2011, as also the claim of Smt.Pushpaja to be treated as senior reckoning her period of service as HSST (Jr), as per the provisions of law afore extracted, after carefully analysing the rival contentions of the parties against such claims. Since it is brought to my notice at the Bar that Smt.Pushpaja ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 22 ``` has now retired from service with effect from 31.03.2019, it is further made clear that depending upon the decision to be taken as afore, all consequential benefits will be granted to her notionally, if it becomes so warranted.” 13. A perusal of Ext.P11 judgment will show that this Court directed the Joint Director of Higher Secondary Education to hear the teachers and the Manager of the school to take a decision on both aspects afore recorded in the judgment. This Court framed two issues in paragraph 9 of the judgment, which is extracted hereunder : a) whether Smt. Vineetha K.T is entitled to be granted approval as HSST w.e.f. 12.12.2011. b) Whether Smt. Pushpaja is entitled to count her service rendered as HSST (Jr.) by reckoning her total period of 6 years of teaching service to make her eligible to be appointed to the post of Principal. 14. On the 2[nd] issue as afore, this Court observed that there is very little doubt going by the provisions of Note 3 to Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of KER that the service rendered by a teacher as both HSST (Jr.) and HSST will have to be reckoned while computing the qualificational experience of 6 years. This Court observed that the reckoning of the service of two teachers ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 23 ``` only in the post of HSST without giving credit to the service of Smt.Pushpaja in the post of HSST (Jr.) prima facie does not appear to be correct. However, this Court remanded the matter mainly for consideration of the plea of the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021 for granting approval w.e.f 12.12.2011. After Ext.P11 judgment was produced in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021, Ext.P12 (Ext.P18 in W.P.(C) No. 23774/21) was passed. It will be better to extract relevant portion of Ext.P12 (Ext.P18 in W.P. ## (C) No. 23774/21) hereunder: "ബഹു. ഹൈ ക്കോടതിയുടെ വിധിന്യായ പ്രകാരം മേല്‍ വിഷയംയ യോഗ്യതയുടെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തില്‍ ഒന്നുകൂടി പരിശ ോധിക്ുയുണ്ടായി.. 31/05/2017 തീയതിയില്‍ ശ്രീമതി. ഗീത ചന്ദ്രോതത പ്രിന്‍സിപ്പാള്‍ തസ്തികയില്‍ നിന്നും വിരമിച്ചതു മൂലം 01.06.2017 ല്‍ ഉണ്ടായ ടി ഒഴിവിലേക പ്രസ് തീയതിയില്‍ ശ്രീമതി. കെ.റ്റി. വിനീതയയോ, ശ്രീമതി സി.പി.പുഷ്പജയയോ പ്രിന്‍സിപ്പാള്‍ തസ്തികയില്‍ നിയമിതരാകുവാന്‍ പൂര്‍ണ്ണയ യോഗ്യത നേടിയിരുന്നില്ല.. ശ്രീമതി. കെ.റ്റി.വിനീത എചച.എസ്.എസ്.റ്റി തസ്തികയില്‍ സേ വനമാരംഭിക്കുന്നത് 13/12/2011 തിയതിയിലാണ് എന്നാല്‍ ശ്രീമതി. സി.പി പുഷ്പജ 25/2/2013 തിയതിയില്‍ മാത്രമാണ് സീനിയര്‍ തസ്തികയില്‍ നിയമിതയാകുന്നത്. ഹയര്‍ സെ ക്കന് ി സ്‌പെഷ്യല്‍ റൂള്‍ പ്രകാരം പ്രിന്‍സിപ്പാള്‍ തസ്തിക എന്നത് എച ച.എസ്.എസ്.റ്റി-മാരുടെ പ്രൊമമോഷന്‍ തസ്തികയാണ്. മാത്രമല്ല സമാന വിഷയം സംബന്ധിചച ബഹു. ഹൈ ക്കോടതിയില്‍ ഫയല്‍ ചെയ്ത 2015 KHC 513 (മാനേജര്‍ നന്മിണ്ട എച്.എസ്.എസ്.കകോഴി്ക്കോട് v/s ഹയര്‍ സെ ക്കണ്ടറി ഡയറക്ടര്‍ & others) പ്രകാരം പ്രിന്‍സിപ്പാള്‍ നിയമനത്തിന് എചച.എസ്.എസ്.റ്റി തസ്തികയിലെ സീനിയയോരിറ്റി മാത്രം കണക്കാക്കിയാല്‍ മതിയെ ന്നും എചച.എസ്.എസ്.റ്റി തസ്തികയിലെ 12 വര്‍ ഷത്തെ സേ വനകാലയളവ്, പ്രിന്‍സിപ്പാള്‍ തസ്തികയിലെ നിയമനത്തിനുള്ള യയോഗ്യതകളില്‍ ഒന്നു മാത്രമാണെ ന്നും, ടി 12 വര്‍ഷ സേ വനകാലയളവുള്ള അദധാപകരുടെ അഭാവത്തില്‍ HSA/UPSA/LPSA യിലെ അംഗീകൃത അധ് ന പരിചയമുള്ള അദധാപകരെ പരിഗണിക്കാവുന്നതാണെ ന്നും, ടി കാലയളവ് സീനിയയോരിറ്റിക പരിഗണിക്കാനാവില്ലായെ ന്നും പരാമര്‍ശിച്ചിട്ടുണട.. വിനീത എച ശ്രീമതി ഹയര്‍ സെ ക്കന് ിവിഭാഗത്തില്‍ . . വനം എസ് എസ്ടി തസ്തികയില്‍ സേ ആരംഭിച്ചത് 13/12/2011 . . എച. മുതലാണ് എന്നാല്‍ ശ്രീമതി പുഷ്പജ എസ്. എസ്.ടി. ആയി സേ വനം ആരംഭിക്കുന്നത് 25/02/2013 . അദ 14 എ മുതല്‍ മാത്രമാണ് കെ ഇആര്‍ ധായം ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 24 ``` 37 അദ ചട്ടം പ്രകാരം ഒരേ തസ്തികയിലുള്ള ധാപകരുടെ സീനിയയോരിറ്റികണക്കാക്കുന്നത്പ്രസ് തസ്തികയില്‍ തുടര്‍ . ച്ചയായസേ വനംകണക്കാക്കിയാണ് കൂടാതെ പ്രിന്‍സിപ്പാള്‍ . . തസ്തിക എച എസ് എസ്ടി യുടെ പ്രെ ാമോഷന്‍ തസ്തികയാണ്. ആയത്പരിഗണിച ശ്രീമതികെ .ടിവിനീത എച .എസ് .എസ്ടിതസ്തികയില്‍ 6 വര്‍ഷംസേ വനം പൂര്‍ 13/12/2017 ത്തീകരിക്കുന്ന ല്‍ പ്രിന്‍സിപ്പാളായി നിയമിക്കുവാനുള്ളയ യോഗ്യത നേ ടിയതായി കാണുന്നു. . ആയതിന്‍പ്രകാരംശ്രീമതികെ ടിവിനീതയുടെ പ്രിന്‍സിപ്പാള്‍ തസ്തികയിലെ നിയമനാംഗീകാര വിഷയത്തില്‍ തുടര്‍ നടപടികള്‍ സ്വീകരിക്കുവാന്‍ കണ്ണൂര്‍ മേഖലാഉപമേധാവിയെ . . ചുമതലപ്പെ ടുത്തി്ക്കൊണടകൂട്ടാളി എച എസ് എസ്ലെ . ശ്രീമതികെ റ്റിവിനീതബഹുഹൈ ക്കോടതിയില്‍ ഫയല്‍ 14331/19, .പി. ചെ യ്ത ശ്രീമതിസി പുഷ്പജഫയല്‍ ചെ യ്ത 12684/19 എന്നീനമ്പര്‍ റിടടപെ റ്റീഷനുകളിലെ 30/03/2021 , തീയതിയിലെ വിധിന്യായം ഇപ്രകാരം നടപ്പിലാക്കി . ഉത്തരവാകുന്നു 15. I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P12 order is actually flouting the observations made in Ext.P11 judgment of this Court. This Court has clearly stated in Ext.P11 that the service of the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 in the post of HSST (Jr.) and in the post of HSST is to be reckoned for computing the qualificational experience of 6 years as mentioned in Note 3 to Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of KER. Thereafter, Ext.P12 order is passed in which it is stated that as per the decision of this Court in _**Manager Nanmanda Higher Secondary school, Kozhikode** v._ _**Director of Higher Secondary Education, Thiruvananthapuram and others**_ [2015 KHC 513], while calculating seniority for the appointment ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 25 ``` as the Principal, the seniority in the post of HSST alone need to be considered. The above judgment is produced as Ext.P21 in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021. There is no dispute about the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P21 produced in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder : _“19. It is true that as per note 1, in the absence of persons having qualification of 12 years at Higher Secondary level, approved teaching experience at high school / upper primary / lower primary schools in the same educational agency will also be considered. It is also true that by note 2, it is provided that such experience shall be reckoned only for qualifying service and shall not be reckoned for seniority. A reading of these provisions of rule shows that by note 2, the experience of high school / upper primary / lower primary teachers is excluded from seniority. That, in our view, does not mean that the experience of HSST (Junior) is intended to be included while seniority of HSST is reckoned for the purpose of promotion to the post of Principal in Aided Higher Secondary schools and thus to upset the acquired and settled seniority of teachers in category 2. Therefore, the contentions relying on the notes to R.6 now urged by the counsel for the writ petitioners cannot be accepted. This, therefore, means that the provisions of Chapter XXXII, KER do not permit an interpretation that a HSST (Junior) who gets promoted as HSST is entitled to reckon the experience again as HSST (Junior) for the purpose of seniority for promotion to the post of Principal.”_ 16. The above decision deals about reckoning of the ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 26 ``` service of HSST(Jr) and HSST for the purpose of seniority for promotion to the post of Principal. That is not applicable in this case because, here the reckoning of the service of HSST(Jr) and HSST for the purpose of qualifying service. As per note 1 to Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of KER, in the absence of persons having qualification as specified in the Rule, approved teaching experience at High school/Upper Primary/Lower Primary school’s under the same Educational Agency is to be considered. Note 2 to Rule 6 states that such experience shall be reckoned only for qualifying service and shall not be reckoned for Seniority. Note 3 to Rule 6 states that such persons must possess a minimum service of 6 years as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Senior/Junior). Therefore, for the purpose of qualifying minimum service of 6 years, the service as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) and service Higher Secondary School Teacher can be reckoned. The petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 has such experience. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, Ext.P12 order produced in W.P. (C.) No. 18470/2021 (Ext.P18 in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021) will not stand, especially because of the specific finding in Ext.P11 judgment produced in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021. ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 27 ``` 17. As far as the contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021 for reckoning the approval of the appointment to the post of HSST (Commerce) w.e.f. 12.12.2011 onwards instead of 13.12.2011 is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that the request is belated. The petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021 raised such a request after about 4 years. The explanation for the delay stated by the petitioner in W.P.(c.) No. 23774/2021 cannot be accepted. She says that only when she was in charge as the Principal, she came to know about this anomaly in the date of appointment. I am not in a position to accept that explanation for the delay. When this Court was not inclined in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021, the counsel appearing for the petitioner in that case submitted that after the retirement of the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021, his client is the qualified person and this Court as per order dated 04.07.2022 observed that the petitioner in W.P. (C.) No.23774/2021 is entitled to get approval as Principal w.e.f. 01.04.2019 and the Regional Deputy Director is free to pass appropriate orders. I make it clear that the RDD will see that the approval of the appointment of the petitioner in W.P. (C.) No. 23744/2021 will be considered w.e.f. 01.04.2019 ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 28 ``` untrammeled by any observations in this judgment. Therefore, in my opinion, the request for appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021 as HSST (Commerce) from 12.12.2011 onwards instead of 13.12.2011 is rightly rejected by the respondents. The upshot of the above discussion is that, the prayers in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 is to be allowed and the prayers in W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021 is to be rejected. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner : 1) W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 is allowed and Ext.P12 in that case is quashed. There will be a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to grant all service benefits to the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 18470/2021 including the arrears of salary in the post of Principal w.e.f. 12.12.2017 and also the consequential pensionary benefits, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 2) W.P.(C.) No. 23774/2021 is dismissed. **Sd/-** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 29 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23774/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE STAFF SELECTION COMMITTEE DATED 09.12.2011. ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A2/13572/2011(1) DATED 22.03.2013. ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A2/13972/2011(J) DATED 12.09.2012. ``` ``` Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A5/293/RDD KNR/2014/K.DIS. DATED 08.07.2014. ``` ``` Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST OF TEACHERS OF HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AS ON 01.01.2018. ``` ``` Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KHS/46/2018 DATED 23.05.2018. ``` ``` Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A8/3533/2017 DATED 01.08.2017. ``` - `Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.11.2017.` ``` Exhibit P9A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.KHSS/173/2017 DATED 04.11.2017. ``` ``` Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A7/1116/2018 DATED 29.10.2018. ``` ``` Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.15/2018 DATED 31.10.2018. ``` ``` Exhibit P13TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.ACD.A1/104501/18/HSE DATED 01.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit P14TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED 11.02.2019 IN WRIT PETITIONS ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 30 ``` ``` NO.35691/2018 AND 41573/2018. ``` ``` Exhibit P15TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A7/1116/2018/K.DIS. DATED 30.03.2019. Exhibit P16TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ACD.A1/104501/2018/H.S.E. DATED 10.04.2019. Exhibit P17TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 30.03.2021 IN WP(C) NO.14331 OF 2019. ``` ``` Exhibit P18TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ACD.B4/151064/2019/H.S.E. DATED 16.08.2021. ``` ``` Exhibit P19TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.04.2019. ``` ``` Exhibit P20TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 01.04.2019. Exhibit P21TRUE COPY OF 2015 KHC 513. ``` RESPONDENTS EXTS: _TRUE COPY_ NIL ``` P.A.TO JUDGE ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 31 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18470/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A2/13972/2011(J) DATED 12.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE RDD, HSE, KOZHIKODE. Exhibit P2TRUE COPY ORDER NO.A5/293/RDD KNR/2014/K.DIS DATED 08.07.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A8/1636/2017 DATED 22.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ACD.A1/104501/18/HSC DATED 01.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.ACD.A1/104501/18/HSC DATED 03.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A7/1116/2018 DATED 26.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A7/1116/2018 DATED 29.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.02.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.35691 OF 2018 AND 41573 OF 2018. Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A7/1116/2018/K.DIS. DATED 30.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ACD.A1/104501/2018/HSE DATED 10.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 30.03.2021 IN WP(C) NO.12684/2019. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 18470 & 23774 OF 2021 ``` ``` 32 ``` ``` Exhibit P12 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ACD.B4/151064/HSE DATED 16.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ## RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL _TRUE COPY_ P.A.TO JUDGE