WP(C) Nos. 2854/2009 (M) & 2988/2009; Jalajakumari G. v. State of Kerala & Others; Suja Philip v. State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.2854 OF 2009(M)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SMT.JALAJAKUMARI.G, NAKKARAMALAYIL HOUSE, PUTHENPURAYIL, OTHARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, (UPSA, ST.JOHN'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ERAVIPEROOR P.O., THIRUVALLA).** **BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 3 MANAGER, ST.JOHN'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ERAVIPEROOR P.O., THIRUVALLA., PATHANAMTHITTA. 4 SMT.LEENA PHILIP, UPSA ST.JOHN'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ERAVIPEROOR P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5 SMT.SOBY GEORGE, W/O THOMAS GEORGE, OLLASSERIMANNIL, PURAMATTOM P.O., THIRUVALLA. 6 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SRI.P.M.MANOJ-SR.GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).2988/2009(E), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** **-2-** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.2988 OF 2009** ## **PETITIONER:** **SUJA PHILIP, UPSA, ST.JOHN'S H.S.S., ERAVIPEROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, THIRUVALLA.** - **4 THE MANAGER, ST.JOHN'S L.P.S., ERAVIPEROOR. 5 SMT. LEENA PHILIPS, L.P.S.A., ST. JOHN'S L.P.S., ERAVIPEROOR.** - **6 SMT. SOBY GEORGE, W/O. THOMAS GEORGE, OLLASSERIMANNIL, PURAMATTOM P.O., THIRUVALLA.** - **7 JALAJAKUMARI G, NAKKARAMALAYIL HOUSE, PUTHENPURAYIL, OTHARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SR.GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).2854/2009(M), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** **-3-** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **[ WP(C).2854/2009, WP(C).2988/2009 ] Dated this the 26th day of March 2021** Prefatorily, I must record that these cases - which are being heard and disposed of jointly – present certain very peculiar and singular facts, which persuades this Court not to take the beaten path but veer towards extra-ordinary remedies. 2. Sometimes, extra-ordinary situations require extra–ordinary solutions! **==> picture [377 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** has been filed by Smt.G.Jalajakumari; while W.P. (C)No.2988 of 2009 has been filed by Smt.Suja Philip, who were both teachers serving the ‘St.John’s Higher Secondary School’, Eraviperoor. It is uncontested that Smt.G.Jalajakumari was working as an Upper Primary School Teacher (UPST); while Smt.Suja Philip working as an High School Teacher (HST), initially. ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** **-4-** 4. In the academic year 2007-08, there was a fall in student strength in the High School Section; consequent to which, a post of HST each in Malayalam and Hindi were reduced, as is recorded in Ext.P2 staff fixation, produced along with W.P.(C)No.2854 of 2009. Resultant thereto, the District Educational Officer (DEO), Thiruvalla, ordered that the two junior most teachers in the cadre of HST, namely, Smt.C.M.Achamma and Smt.Suja Philip be reverted as UPST. This caused a cascading effect because, when these two teachers were to be accommodated as UPSTs, an existing UPST by name Leena Philip was ordered to be reverted as Lower Primary School Teacher (LPST), thus pushing out the existing junior-most LPST by name Smt.Soby George. In order to accommodate the 2[nd] HST, Smt.G.Jalajakumari was ordered to be retrenched, since she did not have TTC qualification but a BEd Degree holder, thus ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-5-** being incapable of being appointed as an LPST. 5. The Manager of the School, thereafter, issued Ext.P3 order produced in W.P.(C)No.2854 of 2009, effecting the afore shifting and retrenchment; which was challenged by Smt.Leena Philip and Smt.Soby George on one hand, and by Smt.G.Jalajakumari on the other hand, by filing independent appeals before the Joint Director of Public Instructions (now re-designated as Joint Director of General Education). This led to Ext.P4 order in W.P.(C)No.2854 of 2009, to be issued by the said Authority, setting aside Ext.P3 in part and holding that the reversion of Smt.Suja Philip as HST was irregular, and thus ordering that Smt.Leena Philip be retained as an UPST and Smt.Soby George be retrenched, being the junior most LPST. Through the said order, Smt.G.Jalajakumari was directed to be transferred as an LPST, after obtaining prior permission from ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** **-6-** the Government under Rule 3 of Chapter I of the Kerala Education Rules (KER). 6. It transpires that Smt.Suja Philip and Smt.Soby George filed a Revision Petition against Ext.P4 order in W.P.(C)No.2854 of 2009 before the Government, which culminated in Ext.P5 order in W.P.(C)No.2854 of 2009, as per which, the order of the Joint Director of Public Instructions against Smt.Suja Philip was affirmed; while the reversion of Smt.G.Jalajakumari and the retrenchment of Smt.Soby George were both found to be irregular. This order further recorded that since Smt.Suja Philip had been appointed as an UPST on 01.06.1998 and promoted as an HST on the very same day, she cannot be deemed to have any service as an UPST, which would have justified her reversion to such post. As regards Smt.G.Jalajakumari, Ext.P5 order in W.P.(C)No.2854 of 2009 concluded that, since she is a BEd degree holder and not a TTC holder, ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** **-7-** she cannot be reverted as a LPST, and that no relaxation can be granted in her favour, as ordered by the Joint Director of Public Instructions. 7. Smt.G.Jalajakumari and Smt.Suja Philip challenges this order of the Government, which has been produced as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.2854 of 2009 and as Ext.P12 in W.P.(C)No.2988 of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned Government Order”). 8. I have heard Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup – learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Soosy – George learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.2854 of 2009; Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.2988 of 2009; Sri.Subhash Chand -learned counsel appearing for Smt.Leena Philip and Smt.Soby George, who are arrayed as respondents in these cases; and the ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** **-8-** learned Senior Government Pleader – Sri.P.M.Manoj appearing for the official respondents. 9. I began this judgment by recording that these cases involve peculiar circumstances because, for the last more than 11 years - when these matters are pending before this Court - the “impugned Government Order” has remain stayed; and as a consequence, all the teachers continued wherever they were and most of them have either retired or are nearing the age of superannuation. 10. Further, pertinently, the controversy in issue arose on account of the fall in division in the School in the academic year 2007-08; but it is stated without contest that, in the academic year 2008-09, there were sufficient vacancies to accommodate all the teachers. 11. In the broad factual context as afore, when I analyze the dialectical contentions of the parties, it becomes evident that if the ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** **-9-** “impugned Government order” is put into operation, at this distance of time, it will cause irreparable prejudice and deleterious consequences to all the teachers, which has, in fact, been interdicted by this Court for last more than twelve years, as said above. 12. With the afore exordium recorded, I will presently indite the essential submissions and contentions of the rival parties. 13. The “Impugned Government Order” is sought to be challenged by Smt.Jalajakumari asserting that it could not have directed her to be retrenched and not reverted as LPST based on her educational qualifications because, the amendment which made TTC mandatory for the said post, came into effect only on 08.06.2000; while she was appointed on 05.06.2000 as a UPST and approved subsequently with effect from that day. Her learned Senior Counsel, Shri. Gopalakrishna Kurup, ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-10-** therefore, argues that the rigour of the said amendment could not have been applied against his client and consequently, that she ought to have been allowed to continue, at least as an LPST, through the period when the fall of division was in force. 14. As far as Smt.Suja Philip is concerned, her Counsel Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, submits that she was a Rule 51A claimant for the post of UPST on account of her earlier approved spells of service and therefore, that even if it is held that her promotion to the post of HST, on the same day as the date on which she was appointed as UPST, is found irregular, she ought to have been allowed to continue as a UPST, since she had an inviolable claim to the said post as said above. Sri. P.C.Sasidharan, therefore, asserts that the “Impugned Government Order”, which directs the retrenchment of his client is improper and **-11-** ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** unnecessary. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan added to the afore submissions by contending that this is without doubt because, his client has been granted approval both in the category of UPST and HST and that the same has never been challenged by any person or Authority. 15. That said, as far as the contra contentions of Smt.Leena Philip and Smt.Soby George are concerned, their learned Counsel Sri.Subhash Chand, submitted that Smt.Suja Philip could never be construed to have been as UPSA since she was neither admitted to duty in the said post on 01.06.1998, nor had she discharged any in such position, but she was promoted as an HST on 01.06.1998 itself, thus admitting her to the said post on the same day. Shri.Subhash Chand, therefore, asserts that Smt. Suja Philip could never be seen to have been a regular UPST and therefore, that when the reduction of post ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-12-** happened, she could not have been reverted to such post, because she can only construed to be a directly recruited HST. 16. As regards Smt.Soby George is concerned, the contentions of Sri.Subhash Chand is that Smt.Jalajakumari cannot be accommodated as an LPST, since she did not, admittedly, have the TTC qualification and therefore, that there was no question of ousting his client from the post. 17. Sri.Subash Chand relies for support on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in _**Thresia M.L.**_ _**v. Preethy M.P. and others [2014 (4) KHC 822]**_ to drive home the proposition that the seniority of teachers at the time of division fall has to be reckoned with respect to the particular category in which they are included and not as a common one; and consequently that when there is a reduction in the post of UPST, the junior most UPST will have to be thrown out and not anyone ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-13-** working in the category of LPST. 18. The afore narration of facts and compendium of the submissions would clearly show that, for the academic year 2007-2008, on account of the fall of divisions two posts of HST had to be abolished, which caused the cascation effect as afore. However, as I have already said above, except in paper, the “Impugned Government Order” has remained in a state of suspended animation throughout the life of these litigations, on account of the interim order of this Court. 19. This is where the peculiar nature of the factual circumstances involved in this cases come into fore because, due to the division fall in the year 2007-2008, two HSTs had to be reverted as UPSTs; and consequently, the junior most UPST namely, Smt.Jalajakumari and Smt.Leena Philip had to be either retrenched or reverted to the post of LPST, causing the position of Smt.Soby George to ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** **-14-** be imperilled. It is pertinent that all this happened in the year 2007-2008; while, for the academic year 2008-2009 the posts had been restored and everything came back to normal 20. Indubitably, therefore, as matters now stand, the sole controversy is with respect to one particular academic year and with respect to a singular factual scenerio that existed more than fourteen years ago. Since this Court had interdicted the operation of the “Impugned Government Order” in the meanwhile, the position of all the teachers has remained in status quo and they have not been able to obtain any of their service benefits, except the basic pay for the last more than twelve years. 21. This is precisely why this Court feels that there are extraordinary circumstances, which warrant an extraordinary remedy. 22. If the “Impugned Government Order” is to ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-15-** be now implemented, it will lead to a situation where, on account of something that happened more than fourteen years ago, Smt.Suja Philip and Smt.Jalajakumari will require to be thrown out of service; which I do not think would be in the fitness of things, when this Court had, _prima facie,_ found in their favour to interdict their retrenchment for all these years. As said earlier, as a consequence, they have all continued in service and have either retired or are nearing retirement. 23. That being said, I find some force in the submissions by Sri.Goaplakrishna Kurup, learned Senior Counsel and of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, made on behalf of their respective clients Smt.Jalajakumari and Smt.Suja Philip. I say so because, as far as the former is concerned, she was appointed on 05.06.2000, while the amendment making the qualification of TTC mandatory for LPST ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-16-** came into force only on 08.06.2000; and as regards Smt.Suja Philip, she had a Rule 51A claim and in normal circumstances she would have been admitted to duty as a UPST, without any objection and perhaps approved. 24. However, the Manager for some reason, initially appointed Smt.Suja Philip as a UPST and then promoted her as HST on the same day, namely, 01.06.1998, which has now led to all the controversy impelled in these cases. Since, the afore promotion of Smt.Suja Philip was affected in the year 1998, it can never be even thought that this was done by the Manger anticipating a situation that may arise in future and that too nearly ten years later. Obviously, therefore, even if Smt.Suja Philip cannot be reckoned as an HST, her claim to have been reckoned as a UPST survives and it is, _prima facie_ , on firm ground. 25. For the afore reasons, I am certain that ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-17-** it will be highly inequitable and unnecessary to now disturb the status with respect to the teachers involved in these cases and that the Government must intervene invoking their power under Rule 3 of Chapter I of the Kerala Educational Rules (KER for short). In fact, at the bar it has been suggested that if the Government invokes the student-teacher ratio of 1:35 for the academic year 2007-2008 as far as Smt.Jalaja Kumari and Smt.Suja Philip are concerned, then they could be accommodated in that year without disturbing others and things could flow smoothly thereafter, because the posts had been restored in the next academic year. 26. I am without doubt that the afore suggestion is worth being directed to be considered by the Government because, for something that happened fourteen years ago and the consequences of which have remained interdicted by ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-18-** this Court for the last more than twelve years, I firmly feel that the teachers should not be now put to detriment, especially when they have either retired or nearing the age of superannuation 27. Needless to say, I am considering the afore course because it is indubitable that Smt.Leena Philip and Smt.Soby George could not have been disturbed from their positions in the light of the affirmative ratio in _**Thresia (supra);**_ and since even if the contentions of Smt.Leena Philip against the approval of Smt.Suja Philip as a UPST – on the ground that she was promoted as an HST on the same day - are to obtain merit: it cannot be answered conclusively by this Court in these writ petitions in the absence of any formal challenge to it. 28. In fact, Sri.Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned Senior Counsel, at this time, brought to my notice a copy of the Government Order, bearing **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-19-** No.G.O.(Rt)No.5084/2013/G.Edn dated 28.11.2013, whereby, a teacher of the same school Smt.Usha Thomas, who had been reverted in the year 20062007, was ordered to be eligible for protection in the Cadre of HST from 15.07.2006 to 01.06.2008; and thus asserted that if this order is taken into account, it really means that there was an additional vacancy available in the School in the academic year 2007-2008. He added that this also would, therefore, enjoin the Government to reconsider the matter, as suggested by this Court afore. **==> picture [391 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** assessments as afore is that the Government must now consider relaxation of the rigour of the Rules, under Rule 3,Chapter I of the KER, so as to accommodate all the teachers in their positions, notwithstanding the fall of divisions in the academic year 2007-2008. This certainly would be ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-20-** the most equitable course in the given circumstances, specially because, as I have already said above, the “Impugned Government Order” has remained interdicted by this Court for the last more than twelve years and therefore, to allow the deleterious consequences flowing therefrom on either Smt.Jalajakumari or Smt.Suja Philip would be rather unjust at this point of time, when both of them have now retired. 30. Added to this, the Government Order afore mentioned by Sri.Gopalakrishna Kurup, would also have to be weighed by the Government, since the said order, _prima facie,_ renders it that an additional vacancy was available in the academic year concerned. Resultantly, I order these writ petitions setting aside the “Impugned Government Order”; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority of Government to decide whether ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-21-** relaxation, as regards Smt.Suja Philip and Smt. Jalajakumari - the petitioners herein, is possible under Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard all the teachers involved in these cases, as also the Manager of the School appropriately. I make it clear that the Government will consider the aspect of relaxation to Smt.Jalajakumari and Smt.Soby George, by considering if the teacher - student ratio of 1:35 for the academic year 2007-2008 can be applied as a special case; which will not be, however, applicable to any other case as a precedent, even if analogous claims are made. Even though I am confident that the Government will rise to the occasion and understand the spirit of this judgment leading to consequential orders, if for any reason, they hold that such an exemption cannot be granted to either ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-22-** Smt.Jalajakumari or Smt.Suja Philip, then an apposite decision will be recorded as regards them, however, without in any manner disturbing Smt.Leena Philip and Smt.Soby George. The afore exercise shall be completed by the Government as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and all eligible service benefits to all the teachers who have languished on account of the pendency of these cases for the last fourteen years - will be released to them without any avoidable delay, but not later than two months thereafter. ## **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** ## **akv/mc** **The name 'Smt.Soby George' occurring in the 2[nd] paragraph of page No.21 of the common judgment dated 26.03.2021 in WP(C)No.2988/2009(E) & Con.Case is substituted as 'Smt.Suja Philip' as per order dated 12.08.2021 in IA 3/2021 in WP(C)No.2988/2009(E).** **Sd/-** **DEPUTY REGISTRAR** **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-23-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2854/2009** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS'S APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 5.6.2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2007 FIXING THE DIVISIONS AND STAFF IN THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S SCHOOL FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2007-2008** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.1.2008 RETRENCHING THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.4.2008 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.1.2009 NO.G.O.(RT)243/09/G.EDN.** - **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT R4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.1998 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** **EXHIBIT R4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.03.1999 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** - **EXHIBIT R4 B TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 05.06.2000 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** **EXHIBIT R5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 08.11.1999 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** **EXHIBIT R5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 05.06.2000 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** ## **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-24-** **EXHIBIT R5 B TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 06.06.2001 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** **EXHIBIT R5 C TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 23.12.2007 IN RESPECT OF ST.JOHN'S HSS, ERAVIPEROOR.** **EXHIBIT R5 D TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 25.08.2007 IN RESPECT OF ST.JOHN'S LPS, ERAVIPEROOR.** - **EXHIBIT R5 E TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 18.05.2007 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.** - **EXHIBIT R5 F TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 26.06.2000.** - **EXHIBIT R5 G TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 11.10.2004.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** **-25-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2988/2009** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER OR THE YEAR 2007-08 DATED 23/12/2007.** **EXHIBIT P2** **A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 05/06/1997.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01/06/1998.** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01/06/1998.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 05/06/2000.** **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 05/06/2000.** **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.207/20072008 DATED 17/01/2008.** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.16262/2008.** - **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. D.DIS/RA(1)14804/08 DATED 04/04/2008.** **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 10/04/2008.** - **EXHIBIT P10(A) A TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/04/2008.** **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22/05/2008 IN WPC NO.13839/2008.** **EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 16/01/2009.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/06/2009.** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF APPROVAL ORDER DATED** **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-26-** **02/06/2008.** **EXHIBIT P15** **TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEADMASTER OF ST. JOHN'S H.S.S. ERAVIPEROOR DATED 11/02/2019 SHOWING THE PRESENT SALARY DRAWN BY THE PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT R5** **TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01/06/1998 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** **EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01/03/1999 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** - **EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 05/06/2000 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** - **EXHIBIT R5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE HIM, ST. JON'S HSS, ERAVIPEROOR.** - **EXHIBIT R5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TEACHERS' ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1998.** - **EXHIBIT R5(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TEACHERS' ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1998.** - **EXHIBIT R5(F) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TEACHERS' ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1998.** - **EXHIBIT R5(G) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TEACHERS' ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1998.** - **EXHIBIT R5(H) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TEACHERS' ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1998.** **EXHIBIT R6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 08/11/1999, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** **EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 05/06/2000, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** - **EXHIBIT R6(B)** **TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED** **WP(C)Nos.2854 & 2988/2009** ## **-27-** ## **06/06/2001, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.** **EXHIBIT R6(C)** **EXHIBIT R6(D)** **EXHIBIT R6(E)** **EXHIBIT R6(F)** **EXHIBIT R6(G)** **EXHIBIT R6(H)** **TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATE 25/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE HM, ST. JOHN'S HSS, ERAVIPEROOR.** **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TEACHERS' ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1998 MAINTAINED AS PART OF THE OFFICE RECORDS.** **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TEACHERS' ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1998 MAINTAINED AS PART OF THE OFFICE RECORDS.** **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TEACHERS' ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1998 MAINTAINED AS PART OF THE OFFICE RECORDS.** **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TEACHERS' ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1998.** **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TEACHERS' ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1998.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE