WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018(W)** ## **PETITIONER:** **ANNIE JOSEPH AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.MOHAN P.KURIAN, PANAKKAMUTTAT GRACE VILLA, KADAPRA-MANNAR.P.O., NIRANAM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.689 621.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR SRI.RAJU GEORGE (KARUVATTA)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.** - **2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.** - **3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.689 601.** - **4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THIRUVALLA.689 101.** - **5 RACHEL ABRAHAM THEVERIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBAGHAM.P.O., NIRANAM WEST, THIRUVALLA.689 101.** - **6 PROF. C.A.CHACKO ROSEMOUNT, NEAR MUNICIPAL BUS STAND, THIRUVALLA.689 101.** WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases 2 **R1, R5 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.RISHIKESH HARIDAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SHIJIN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).15552/2011(T), WP(C).7171/2018(V), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942** **WP(C).No.15552 OF 2011** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**RACHEL ABRAHAM AND ANOTHER, THEVERIL HOUSE**| |---|---| ||**KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM.P.O,, NIRANAM WEST, THIRUVALLA.**| ||**WORKING AS HEADMISTRESS OF KADAPRA, ST. THOMAS**| ||**HIGH SCHOOL.**| |**2**|**PROF. C.A. CHACKO ROSE MOUNT**| ||**NEAR MUNICIPAL BUS STAND, THIRUVALLA,,**| ||**FUNCTIONING AS MANAGER, ST. THOMAS SCHOOL,,**| ||**NIRANAM WEST, KADAPRA.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.P.HARIDAS**| ||**SMT.S.SIKKY**| ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY**| |---|---| ||**SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,,**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.**| |**2**|**DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC, INSTRUCTION,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**3**|**DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,,**| ||**THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 601.**| |**4**|**THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER**| ||**THIRUVALLA - 689 601.**| |**5**|**SMT. ANNIE JOSEPH HSA**| ||**ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL, NIRANAM WEST,, KADAPRA -**| ||**689 692.**| ||**R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER**| ||**R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR**| WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases 4 **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).7171/2018(V), WP(C).8589/2018(W), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases 5 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942** **WP(C).No.7171 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **RACHEL ABRAHAM W/O OOMMMEN VARGHESE NOW WORKING AS HEADMISTRESS ST.THOMAS H.S. NIRANAM WEST, RESIDING AT THEVERIL, KIZHKKUM BHAGAM P.O. NIRANAM,THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN-689 621** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE SRI.P.HARIDAS SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY**| |---|---| ||**DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,**| ||**GOVT.SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695001**| |**2**|**DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA-689 101**| |**3**|**THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER**| ||**THIRUVALLA. PIN-689 101**| |**4**|**ANNIE JOSEPH**| ||**AGED 57, W/O MOHAN.P.KURIAN,**| ||**PANAKKAMUTTATHU GRACE VILLA,**| ||**KADAPRA, MANNAR P.O.,**| ||**NIRANAM, THIRUVALLA,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689621.**| WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases 6 **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1 BY ADV. ADV. AMALA.J.RAJ R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.GOKUL BABU R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYANT R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJU GEORGE KARUVATTA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).15552/2011(T), WP(C).8589/2018(W), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases 7 ## **JUDGMENT** **[ WP(C).8589/2018, WP(C).15552/2011, WP(C).7171/2018 ]** ## **Dated this the 28th day of January 2021** Rival and opposing claims made by Smt.Rachel Abraham and Smt.Annie Joseph, who were both working as High School Teachers in “St.Thomas Higher Secondary School,” Niranam, Pathanamthitta had led to these writ petitions – which are being considered together on account of the interlayered facts and circumstances involved – to be filed. 2. I do not propose to speak in detail on the facts involved in these cases because, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that pending this _lis_ , both Smt.Rachel Abraham and Smt.Annie Joseph retired from service and all that now remains to be decided is whether the appointment granted by the Manager of the School to Smt.Rachel Abraham on 27.4.2007 overlooking the seniority of Smt.Annie joseph, is illegal or otherwise. 3. Before I move forward, one thing has to be borne in mind, namely, that the Educational Institution is admitted to be WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases **==> picture [7 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** enjoying minority status, which has been confirmed by a learned Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in W.A. No.1500/2015 and connected matters. This is relevant because, at the time when this writ petition was filed, there was a dispute as to whether the school could be construed to be a minority educational institution, which has been finally settled by this Court through the afore judgment on 20.6.2019. 4. Thus, when the school is now concededly a minority educational institution, it is well settled through the judgments of the Honorable Supreme Court in **N.Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School [(1998)6 SCC 674]** and **The Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew & Others [(2017)15 SCC 595]** that they are entitled to choose their head without being governed by the rigour of seniority under Rule 44(1) Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), but on condition that they follow a fair and transparent procedure for making such selection, based on merit. 5. The obligation of the Management to follow a fair and transparent procedure has also been now reinstated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **M.D.Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah** and **others [(2020) 6SCC** WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases **==> picture [7 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **689]** and therefore, what remains for this Court to verify is whether the appointment of Smt.Rachel Abraham was made by the Manager following such procedure. 6. Among the three writ petitions that I am considering today, W.P.(C) Nos.15552/2011 and 7171/2018 have been filed by Smt.Rachel Abraham; while W.P.(C) No.8589/2018 has been filed by Smt.Annie Joseph. 7. The reason why the aforesaid writ petitions came to be filed is that, when Rachel Abraham was appointed by the Manager on 27.4.2007, her approval was rejected by the Deputy Director of Education saying that seniority of Smt.Annie Joseph had been illegally overlooked. This led to Smt.Rachel Abraham to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17352/2007, which was disposed of directing that the statutory appeal filed by her be considered - which finally led to - proceedings before the various Educational Authorities, in their hierarchy under the KER, finally culminating in an order dated 30.5.2011, which is produced as Ext.P16 (hereinafter referred to as the “Order of Rejection”) in W.P.(C) No.15552/2011. 8. Through the “Order of Rejection,” the Government WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases **==> picture [13 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** held that appointment of Smt.Rachel Abraham by the Manager is incorrect, since the seniority of Smt.Annie Joseph had been overlooked, especially because, in doing so, the Manager had not adopted a fair or transparent procedure, as had been mandated by a full Bench of this Court in **Kurian Lissie vs State of Kerala [2006 (4)KLT 264 (FB)].** The Government also stated that the Manager did not produce any document to show that such procedure had been followed and consequently directed the District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla (DEO) to approve the appointment of Smt.Annie Joseph, making it clear that she will be eligible for salary of the Headmistress for the period she actually worked. 9. The “Order of Rejection” has been challenged by Smt.Rachal Abraham through her writ petitions; while Smt.Annie Joseph has filed W.P.(C) No.8589/2018 seeking that same be implemented. 10. I have heard Sri.Chandrasekharan Nair, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Annie Joseph; Sri.P.Haridas, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Rachel Abraham and the learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.P.M.Manoj for the official respondents in all these cases. WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases 11 11. As I have stated in the prefatory paragraphs of this judgment, the pertinent question for my consideration is whether appointment of Smt.Rachel Abraham, overlooking the seniority of Smt.Annie Joseph, had been made validly by the Manager and whether he had followed a fair, transparent and merit based procedure. This is imperatively relevant because if the Manager had followed such procedure, then, obviously, appointment of Smt. Rachel Abraham cannot found fault with since, as is now well settled, in the cases of minority education institutions, they are entitled to appoint a person as their Head without having to follow the Principles of Seniority as per the applicable Rules and Regulations. 12. That being so in the impugned “Order of Rejection” Government found the appointment of Smt.Rachel Abraham to be incompetent, since no documents had been produced by the Manager before it to show that he had followed a fair, transparent or merit based procedure. The contention of Smt. Annie Joseph is that no such procedure had been followed and that the Manager had, in fact, unilaterally created a Bye-law - a copy of which is on record as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No.8589/2018 – and effected the appointment of Smt.Rachel Abraham as per its terms, asserting WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases **==> picture [13 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** that same is invalid and illegal because it has not obtained the concurrence or approval of the Educational Agency. 13. However, interestingly, in the counter pleadings filed by Smt. Annie Joseph she does not specifically say that no selection process had been conducted by the manager and this assumes importance in this case because the minutes of a Selection Committee constituted by the Manager of the School has been produced as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.15552/2011. The said minutes of the Selection Committee shows that they had interviewed both Smt. Annie Joseph and Smt.Rachel Abraham and had granted 29 marks to the former and 34 marks to the latter. Smt. Annie Joseph does not challenge these proceedings nor does she say that the marks granted to her is incorrect, but that it has been done by the Committee in an illegal manner and on the basis of a Bye-law which had not been approved by the Educational Agency. To add to the above, Sri. Chandrasekharan Nair learned counsel for Smt.Annie Joseph, submits that these documents have no legal validity, since, they were not produced before the competent Educational Authority by the Manager. However, this submission would obtain no real relevance because, as I have already said above, Smt. Annie Joseph does not have a case that WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases **==> picture [13 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** she was not subjected to an interview process, as has been recorded in Ext. P6 minutes. 14. Hence, what is now incumbent upon this Court is to verify whether the process, as claimed by the Manager, which is reflected in Ext.P3 minutes produced along with W.P.(C) No.15552/2011, can find favour in law and whether this Court will be justified in examining it, since they were not produced before the Government when the impugn “Order of Rejection” had been issued. 15. The minutes of the Selection Committee namely Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.15552/2011, shows that its meetings were conducted on 14.4.2007 and 20.4.2007; and that Smt. Annie Joseph and Smt. Rachel Abraham had been interviewed by them. The Minutes also shows that, the Committee consisted of the Present Manager, Former Manager and the outgoing Headmaster and that after analysing the performance of two candidates in the interview, Smt.Annie Joseph was granted 29 marks and Smt. Rachel Abraham 34 marks. Obviously, therefore, Smt. Rachel Abraham was found to be more meritorious than Smt. Annie Joseph and resultantly, the Manager offered her appointment as the Headmistress of the School. WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases **==> picture [13 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 16. The contention of Smt. Annie Joseph is that, though she was subjected to such an interview, the said process cannot be construed to be sufficient to override her higher statutory claim for being appointed as the Headmistress based on the conceded seniority, because said process is not fair, transparent or merit based. She fortifies her contentions by saying that since the process was held on the basis of the Bye-laws prepared by the Manager unilaterally, without the concurrence of the Educational Agency, it cannot have legs to stand in law. 17. When I consider the afore contentions, it is indubitable that when the Manager had constituted a Selection Committee and when Smt. Annie Joseph had participated in the selection process without challenging the manner of selection or constitution of the said committee, she cannot now turn around and say that said process was not properly conducted, merely because the Bye-laws had not been prepared by the Educational Agency in terms of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in **Lissie Kurian** (supra). I am afraid that this contention would have no favour in law on account of the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ammad** (supra) **and James Mathew** (supra), wherein, it has been postulated without doubt that WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases **==> picture [13 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** minority educational institutions can choose a Head of their own, without having to follow the rigour seniority. 18. However, it is also without doubt that the Honourable Supreme Court has clarified that when such a process is taken forward, it should be fair, transparent and merit based. 19. Coming to the case at hand, going by the Minutes of the Selection Committee, I cannot find that the procedure they followed was not merit-based because both the teachers were interviewed by a panel and they were allotted marks as have been recorded therein. 20. As I have said above, Smt.Annie Joseph does not challenge the Minutes of the Committee, nor does she challenge the marks awarded to her; but she solely alleges that the process is bad on account of the fact that it was conducted on the basis of the Bye-law prepared by the Manager. I am afraid that this contention cannot impress me because, as per the Minutes of the Selection Committee, the procedure adopted by them was based on an evaluation of the merits of the rival candidates and Smt.Rachael Abraham had scored higher marks than Smt.Annie Joseph. 21. This is particularly because, even when I pointedly asked Sri.Chandrasekharan Nair whether his client had participated WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases **==> picture [13 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** in the interview, he was unable to offer any answer, but reiteratingly said that the Minutes of the meeting is manipulated, it not having been produced before the Educational Authorities. 22. I cannot, therefore, grant imprimatur to the contentions of Sri.Chandrasekharan Nair, made on behalf of Smt.Annie Joseph, that the process was not merit-based or that it is vitiated in law. 23. When I so conclude, it becomes obvious that the 'Order of Rejection' issued by the Government cannot obtain sanction in law, since what is stated therein is that the Manager had not produced the relevant records to show that the selection procedure was transparent and merit based. It may be true that the Manager did not produce the Minutes of the Selection Committee Meeting or their proceedings before the Government or the Educational Authorities, but since they are available before this Court and since Smt.Annie Joseph does not challenge it _per se,_ except saying that the process has been done based on an invalid Bye-law, I do not deem it necessary that the matter be remanded to the Government for a fresh consideration, particularly when both teachers have now retired on attaining the age of superannuation and further since Smt.Annie Joseph has not worked even for one WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases 17 day as the Headmistress during the pendency of these cases. In the afore circumstances, I allow W.P. (C)No.15552/2011 and W.P.(C)No.7171/2018, setting aside Government Order dated 30.05.2011 (which is Ext.P16 in WP(C)No.15552/2011); with a consequential direction to the jurisdictional District Educational Officer to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner-Smt.Rachel Abraham with effect from 01.05.2007, along with all consequential and necessary service and pensionary benefits being disbursed to her, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Consequentially, W.P.(C)No.8589/2018 will stand dismissed. After I dictated this judgment, Sri.S.Chandrasekharan Nair - learned counsel for Smt.Annie Joseph, submitted that since his client was incapacitated from working as the Headmistress on account of no fault of hers, this Court may direct the Educational Authorities to refix her pension, construing that she was eligible to be so appointed. I am afraid that I cannot accede to this contention since I have already found that appointment of Smt.Rachel Abraham was WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases **==> picture [13 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** not in error and obviously, therefore, Smt.Annie Joseph cannot even seek that she should be construed to have worked as the Headmistress, when she did not factually do so even for one day. ## **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** SMF/RR WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases 19 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8589/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/4053/07 DATED 04.06.2007 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST AS ON 31.07.1999 OF THE ST.THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ET3/56098/2010/DPI/K.D DATED 03.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO.1974/2011/G.EDN. DATED 30.05.2011 ISSUED BY GENERAL EDUCATION(A)DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2017 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.15552/2011. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.2.2018.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.2.2018.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.2.2018.** WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases 20 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15552/2011** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(RT)NO. 1230/2005/G.EDN. DATED 28/03/2005. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAW DATED 26/02/2007. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 05/03/2007. EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BIO DATA SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 05/03/2007. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 05/03/2007. EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BIO DATA SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 05/03/2007. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE KADAPRA ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL NIRANAM DATED 14/04/2007. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DATED 20/04/2007. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO. MG.APT./2007/03 DATED 27/04/2007. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16/04/2007 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 18/07/2007. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/06/2007 IN WPC NO.17352/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-9982/2004 DATED 27/09/2007 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B44304/07/K.DIS. DATED 03/01/2008 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.** WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases 21 - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ET3/57098/2010/DPI/K./DIS. OF DPI DATED 03/09/2010.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18/09/2010.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/10/2010 WPC NO.30140/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P16** - **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO(RT) NO.1974/2011/G.EDN. DATED 30/05/2011.** - **EXHIBIT P19 (1). TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 21/05/2007. (2)TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1500/2015, WA NO. 1586/2015, WA NO.1624/2015 AND WA NO.2060/2012 DATED 20/06/2019.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 31/03/2005 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/06/2007 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA.** **EXHIBIT R5(C) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19/06/2007 IN WPC NO.16451/2007.** **EXHIBIT R5(D) TRUE COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 22/01/2011 OF 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.** **EXHIBIT R5 (E) THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 17.06.2020** WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases 22 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7171/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O. (RT)NO.1230/2005/G.EDN.DATED 28.3.2005** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 27.4.2007** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.11.2014 IN WPC NO.7695/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2017 IN WPC NO.15552/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 08.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE PROPOSAL OF FIXATION DATED 05.02.2018 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.2.2018 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/9634/2017/D.DIS DATED 23.07.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**