Kerala High Court
Basil Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 June, 2024
W.P(C) No.30350/23 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 30350 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
BASIL THOMAS
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. SAMU THOMAS, KOOMULLUMKUNNEL HOSUE, KEERAMPARA-
P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686681
BY ADVS.
DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
JOBY D JOSEPH
MARY CATHERINE PRIYANKA P.S.
RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.)(K/276/1990)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PADMAVILASAM
ROAD, FORT, NALUMUKKU, PAZHAVANGADI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
4 JOINT DIRECTOR
REGIONAL DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, MINI
CIVIL STATION, 5TH FLOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686691
5 THE SECRETARY
MAR ATHANASIUS COLLEGE ASSOCIATION AND CHAIRMAN, MAR
ATHANASIUS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTHAMANGALAM,
KOTHAMANGALAM COLLEGE P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
686666
6 JERINE SHAJAN
MARACHERIL HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHY P.O., NELLIMATTAM,
KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
7 KIRAN JOY
S/O.JOY, ARACKAL HOUSE, KURUPPAMPADY P.O.,
W.P(C) No.30350/23 2
PERUMBAVOOR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683545
8 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LABOUR AND SKILLS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL
R8 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2023 IN I.A.
NO.2/2023 IN WP(C) 30350/2023.
BY ADVS.
GEORGE JACOB (JOSE)
S. P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
No Advocate
N.SANTHA(S-176)
V.VARGHESE(K/514/1996)
PETER JOSE CHRISTO(K/1216/2004)
S.A.ANAND(K/1216/2006)
K.N.REMYA(K/712/2010)
L.ANNAPOORNA(K/952/2013)
VISHNU V.K.(K/001396/2018)
ABHIRAMI K. UDAY(K/001426/2018)
ROSHAN JACOB MUNDACKAL(K/000794/2017)
OTHER PRESENT:
ANTONY MUKKATH SPL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING
ON 12.06.2024,THE COURT ON 28.06.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.30350/23 3
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
...........................................................
W.P(C) No.30350 of 2023
.............................................................
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-
The 5th respondent college invited applications for various posts, including the post of Tradesman in the Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department, as per notification dated 19.12.2021, marked as Ext.P3 in the writ petition. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Tradesmen, as per Ext.P1 Kerala Technical Education Subordinate Service Rules, 2012, are as follows:-
Category Method of Appointment Qualification
9. Tradesman (1) By transfer/ 1. A pass in Technical High School Leaving (2) Direct Recruitment Certificate Examination with specialisation in the appropriate Trade.
OR
2. (i)pass in Technical High School Leaving Certificate Examination or equivalent.
(ii) National Trade Certificate in the appropriate trade/Pass in Kerala Government Certificate in Engineering Examination in the appropriate trade/Pass in Vocational Higher Secondary Certificate course in the appropriate Trade.
W.P(C) No.30350/23 4
2. The 6th respondent did not have the essential qualification, namely ITI qualification in the trade concerned, as he is a B.Tech degree holder in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and M.Tech degree in Power Electronics and Devices. While the petitioner is admittedly qualified, the qualifications of respondents 6 and 7 were questioned by the writ petitioner on the ground that they lacked the essential qualification stipulated under the Special Rules and therefore, not entitled to be appointed as Tradesman as per Ext.P3 notification. Though the petitioner had impleaded the 7th respondent also making similar allegation, as the said respondent was offered permanent appointment in another category, only the qualification and the appointment granted to the 6th respondent remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition.
3. The 6th respondent places reliance on Rule 10(a)(i) and (ii) to contend that he is qualified. The said provisions are extracted below:-
"Rule 10(a)(i). The educational or other qualifications, if any, required for a post shall be as specified in the Special Rules applicable to the service in which that post is included or as specified in the executive orders of Government in cases where Special Rules have not been issued for the post/service.
(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post, in the Special Rules or found acceptable by the Commission as per Rule 13(b)(i) of the said rules in cases where acceptance of equivalent qualifications is provided for in the rules and as such of those qualifications W.P(C) No.30350/23 5 which pre-suppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post, shall also be sufficient for the post."
4. In short, the 6th respondent contends that since he has a B.Tech degree, it must be treated as a qualification which pre-supposes the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.355/2022 challenging the appointment of the 6 th respondent and also seeking appointment as Tradesman. This Court, by judgment dated 25.01.2023, disposed of the writ petition directing the 4 th respondent- the Joint Director, Regional Directorate of Technical Education, to consider the claims raised by the petitioner through Ext.P19 judgment. Though the 4th respondent conducted a hearing and the parties gave detailed argument notes, no decision was taken and by an order dated 09.04.2023, sought a clarification from the 3 rd respondent Director of Technical Education on the question of eligibility of the 6 th respondent. The petitioner again filed W.P.(C) No. 6600/2023, in which this Court, by judgment dated 08.03.2023, directed the 4 th respondent to forward the file relating to the issue to the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, who was directed to consider the same on merits after hearing both sides, by Ext.P41 judgment. Though the parties were heard, no orders were passed; accordingly, the present writ petition was filed.
5. The writ petition filed was amended twice. The prayers now sought by the petitioner are to quash Ext.P6 order of appointment issued in favour of the 6 th respondent, to declare that respondents 6 and 7 are not entitled to be appointed as W.P(C) No.30350/23 6 Tradesman and to direct the 5th respondent to appoint the petitioner as Tradesman.
6. By orders dated 11.01.2024, the Government was directed to file a counter dealing with the question of eligibility of the 6th respondent. A counter affidavit has been filed on 11.01.2024 stating that since the issuance of Ext.P2 Government Order has created some ambiguity in the matter, the Labour Department had taken up the entire issue for final decision/clarification before the Departmental Dispute Resolution Committee to be constituted. Accordingly, time was given and enlarged and finally an affidavit was filed on 07.06.2024, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:-
"9. ......... The question to be considered is whether the qualification of Engineering degree in the relevant subject/discipline possessed by Sri.Jerin Shajan presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification for tradesman in the same subject/discipline and the relevant orders on the subject issued by the State Government.
10. It is submitted that the Handbook published by the Directorate of Technical Education deals with the duties of Tradesman which includes assisting the Trade Instructor in the distribution and collection of tools, work pieces, etc., handling, distributing tools and apparatus to ensure full utilization of shop hours by students, making arrangements to enable students to do practicals, cleaning and lubrication of tools and machines, setting up the shops/laboratories for work, etc.
11. It is submitted that the promotion post from the cadre of Tradesman is Trade Instructor Grade-II and Grade-I, the duties and functions of which involve skills of engineering as well. The further promotion posts are Instructor Grade-II and Grade-I in which the former requiring Diploma Course in Engineering and the later, B.Tech W.P(C) No.30350/23 7 in Engineering in the relevant subject. All the topics/subjects necessary for a student to study to work as Tradesman in any discipline like Civil, Mechanical and Electronics and Communication are being studies as basics in the same B.Tech Course.
12. It is submitted that, as recommended by the Registrar, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Government have issued Exhibit P25 common order dated 30.07.2022 stating that B.Tech Certificates awarded by various Universities in Kerala are higher qualification to the Diploma Certificates and ITI/ ITC/KGCE/ KGTE/ NAC/NTC Electrical/ Wireman/ Electrical Engineering Certificates in the respective branches and also the branches in which Universities in Kerala had issued equivalency certificates.
13. It is submitted that even before the issuance of Exhibit P25, Government had issued a series of orders, by which the Diploma and Degree qualifications were treated as the higher education of ITI certificate in various branches specified therein. As per G.O(Rt) No.923/2022/H.Edn dated 18.06.2022, it was ordered that the Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering is a higher qualification of ITI Certificate in Electrician Trade.
14. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Court in its various judgments had clarified that higher educational qualification in the same branch is not a bar to apply for the posts for which lower educational qualification is prescribed, to be included in the rank list or to get appointment. The educational qualification for promotion/ direct appointment to the promotion posts of Tradesman post, viz; Instructor Grade-II and Instructor Grade-I is Diploma/ B.Tech respectively. Apart from this, the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University Ordinance issued on 30.05.2023 specifying the appointment and qualification of Aided College teaching staff also provides that those who have the educational qualification of Degree/ Diploma can also be considered for direct recruitment to the post of Tradesman.W.P(C) No.30350/23 8
15. It is submitted that the 6th respondent was appointed as Tradesman, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering during the period when Exhibit P25 order was in force envisaging B.Tech qualification in the same faculty, namely, Electrical and Electronics Engineering as relevant higher qualification. There exists an ambiguity regarding validity of G.O (Rt) No.1171/2022/H.Edn dated 30.07.2022 issued by Higher Education Department and G.O(Rt) No.57/2023/:BR dated 17.01.2023 issued by Labour Department, the matter was taken up with the Departmental Dispute Resolution Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary to examine the dispute and to submit suggestions before the competent authority when inter- departmental disputes arise.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
17. It is submitted that the Government have examined the matter in the light of the recommendations and findings of the Departmental Dispute Resolution Committee. Government have taken a stand that Exhibit P2 order (G.O(Rt) No.57/2023/LBR dated 17.01.2023) will be made applicable to those PSC notifications issued after the said Government Order, ie; after 17.01.2023.
18. In the above circumstances the contentions of the petitioner are not sustainable. Hence the appointment of Sri. Jerin Shajan need not be disturbed at this stage as his appointment was prior to 17.01.2023."
7. The college, respondent No.5, and the selected respondent No.6 filed their affidavits defending the qualification and the appointment of the 6 th respondent.
8. Heard Sri.Renjith Thampan, the learned Senior Counsel along with Dr. George Abraham for the writ petitioner, Sri. George Jacob (Jose) for the 5 th respondent, Sri. V. Varghese for the 6th respondent and Sri. Antony Mukkath, the W.P(C) No.30350/23 9 learned Special Government Pleader.
9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, apart from reiterating the contentions taken in the amended writ petition, places reliance on Exts.P37 and P38 judgments passed by this Court as well as the judgments in Ajith K. and others v. Aneesh K.S. and others [2019 KHC 6830], Janardanan K. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2008 (3) KHC 299], Sudhir Singh v. State of U.P. [2023 KHC Online 6964], Muhammed Naeem v. State of Kerala [2024 (1) KLT 565] and W.P.I.L. Ltd, Ghaziabad v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, U.P. [2005 KHC 449]. The learned Senior Counsel argues that the petitioner alone was qualified and the 5 th respondent committed an error in appointing the 6th respondent who was not qualified. Since the qualification was prescribed and the 6th respondent lacks the same, the petitioner, who has the qualification, ought to have been appointed. It is also submitted that as of 18.01.2022, the last date of application, the petitioner alone was qualified. The Statement in the affidavit filed by the Government that the 6th respondent was appointed during the pendency of Ext.P25 Government Order dated 30.7.2022 cannot be accepted as the date of appointment cannot have any relevance, much less when the question of eligibility is in issue. He relies on the decision in Sudhir Singh v. State of U.P. [2023 KHC Online 6964] to contend that the basic question on eligibility has to be determined based on the cut-off date/the point of time mentioned in the date of notification itself unless extended by the authority W.P(C) No.30350/23 10 concerned. Ext.P25 Government Order dated 30.07.2022 issued by the Higher Education Department, stated that the B.Tech certificates awarded by various Universities in Kerala are higher qualification to the Diploma Certificates and ITI/ITC/KGCE/KGTE/NAC/NTC Electrical/Wireman/ Electrical Engineering Certificates in the respective branches and also the branches in which Universities in Kerala had issued equivalency certificates, in terms of eligibility criteria, duration of the course, contents covered and knowledge level acquired. The Government Order was issued upon receiving representation from certain persons and also from the Registrar, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University, the University under which all the Engineering Colleges and other technical institutions are affiliated.
10. The learned Senior Counsel also brings to my notice Ext.P2 Government Order issued by the Labour Department dated 17.01.2023, which refers to the Government Order dated 30.07.2022 (Ext.P25) and clarified that it cannot be said that a Bachelor's Degree is a higher qualification than the trade certificates. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that Ext P2 clarification is retrospective and applies to the selection in question and, the 6th respondent must be treated as not qualified. The statement in the affidavit filed by the Government on 10.06.2024, that Ext.P2 Government Order dated 17.01.2023 is prospective and can apply only to the notifications issued after that, cannot be accepted as much by the fact that it is a clarificatory order as by the fact the Government had realised that B.Tech is not a higher degree to the ITC/Diploma certificates. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Government having held that it is not a higher qualification, there is no W.P(C) No.30350/23 11 relevance for the date '17.01.2023' and it must be applied to all the selections. Specific reference is made to Ext.P38 judgment by the Division Bench, which has become final, which also holds that a B.Tech degree cannot be treated as a higher qualification. He thus submits that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and by the stand taken by the Government in Ext.P2 G.O. dated 17.01.2023 and therefore, prays for allowing the writ petition.
11. The learned counsel for the 6 th respondent Sri. Varghese, opposing the above contentions, submits that his case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. and others v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others [2010 KHC 5231[ and the judgment in Dharun v. Shino M. Gopal [2020 (5) KLT 559]. The Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment in Dharun (supra) was dismissed on 01.02.2021. A review petition was filed against the dismissal, which was also dismissed holding that Dharun's case (supra) was similar to facts in Jyoti K.K's case (supra) and the view of the Division Bench was accepted and accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was rejected. He therefore contends that the case which is squarely covered by Jyoti K.K's case and Dharun's case as well as by the Division Bench in Manikandan M.A. and another v. Suresh Kumar B. and others [2015 (5) KHC 850] and the writ petition is liable to be rejected.
12. Sri. George Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent argues that B.Tech is a qualification for the promotion posts under Ext.P1 service rules and therefore, it cannot be doubted that a B.Tech degree is in the same faculty W.P(C) No.30350/23 12 and hence Rule 10(a)(b) cited above squarely applies. He also places reliance on the judgments in Manikandan and Jyoti (supra).
13. The learned Special Government Pleader, Sri. Antony Mukkath argued that the Government had considered and taken a decision as directed by this Court holding that Ext.P2 Government Order dated 17.01.2023 will apply only to the notifications issued after the said date. There is no challenge to the Government Orders and therefore, the appointment of the 6th respondent has to be saved. He also argues that B.Tech in question is in the same faculty and therefore must be treated as a higher qualification entitling the 6th respondent to be appointed.
14. The issue involved in this case lies in a narrow compass. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is qualified under the Special Rules and in terms of the notification and it is the qualification of the 6th respondent that is questioned by the writ petitioner. While the petitioner contends that the 6 th respondent is not qualified as he does not have the ITI certificate in the trade concerned, the 6 th respondent contends that he being a B.Tech holder and also possessing Post Graduate degree of M.Tech, must be treated as a superior qualification, which pre- supposes the qualification required. Ext.P1 Special Rules clearly show that B.Tech is the qualification required for the higher posts, though not for the immediate higher posts. As a Bachelor's degree in Engineering is the essential qualification for higher posts, it has necessarily to be taken that a B.Tech degree is a superior qualification as it is in the same faculty. As held by the Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K's case (supra), W.P(C) No.30350/23 13 a higher qualification acquired must be in the same faculty and if that be so, such qualification can certainly be stated to pre-suppose the acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for the post. It is also held that if the employer/appointing authority wanted only diploma holders to apply for the post, then the rules should have excluded the candidates possessing higher qualifications or it should have stated that a degree holder shall not be eligible to apply for the post. In such cases where the rules do not disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications in the same faculty, then such qualifications must be taken to pre-suppose the qualification prescribed for the post. This principle was followed by this Court in the judgment reported in Dharun's case (supra) while reversing the decision of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal that held that the inclusion of engineering graduates in a selection process for the post of Tradesman was wrong. Interpreting Rule 10(a)(ii), it was stated as follows:-
"13. Rule 10(a)(ii) commences with a non-obstante provision. It contemplates three situations:
(i) Qualifications recognized by executive orders or standing orders of the Government as being equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules; or
(ii) Qualifications found acceptable by the Commission in accordance with R.13(b)(i) in cases where acceptance of equivalent qualifications is provided for in the Special Rules; and
(iii) Qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for the post.
Any of these would be treated as sufficient for the post." W.P(C) No.30350/23 14
15. It is also to be noted in the instant case that the Public Service Commission had, through its decision taken on 23.01.2023, Ext.P26, decided not to implement the order dated 17.01.2023 by stating that it will not apply to notifications issued before the said date. In any view of the matter, as the qualification of a B.Tech degree is a qualification for the superior posts under the special rules, it cannot be said that the graduation is not in the same faculty. It is also to be noticed that Ext.P37 judgment of the Division Bench reported in Muhammed Naeem v. State of Kerala [2024 (1) KLT 565] holding that a National Trade Certificate is not a lower qualification of degree or diploma in engineering and acquisition of such a degree or diploma does not pre-suppose the acquisition of National Trade Certificate is under challenge before the Supreme Court and the operation of the judgment stayed.
16. It is pertinent to note that the judgment of this Court in Manikandan's case (supra) held that in the structure of the hierarchy, where for the promotional posts, a bachelor's degree is mandatory, then a degree in the same faculty must be considered as a higher qualification which pre-supposes the acquisition of essential qualification relying on the report of the expert committee constituted for the said purpose.
17. As regards the contention based on Ext.P37 and Ext.P38 judgments, relied on by the petitioner, there was no finding in those cases that the degree obtained W.P(C) No.30350/23 15 was in the same faculty and, as a matter of fact, the finding appears to be that there was no provisional or special rules or executive order or standing order of the Government acknowledging a Degree or Diploma in Engineering as a higher qualification and in the absence of the same, it was held in those cases that the Director of Technical Education has no authority to certify the same.
18. As already held above, as far as this case is concerned, the ratio in Jyoti K.K., Manikandan M.A. and Dharun (supra) apply on all fours. The judgments relied on by the Senior Counsel in Janardhanan K. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2008 (3) KHC 299] also found that the degree in that case was not in the same faculty and therefore, a degree will not pre-suppose the acquisition of an ITI certificate. It is also relevant to note that the qualification fixed for Tradesman by the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University on 23.05.2023 mandates a degree for Tradesman, namely a graduate degree or diploma or National Trade Certificate. True that, this came after the notification in question, but it is certainly an indication. None of the government orders are challenged in the writ petition.
19. That apart, the stand of the Government that Ext.P2 Government Order dated 17.01.2023 can only be made prospective and for the notifications issued thereafter tallies with the stand taken by the Public Service Commission as well, as seen from Ext.P26. These decisions have a semblance of recruitment policy, in matters of which, Courts normally defer to the discretion of the employer/appointing authority. It is also brought to my notice that the 6th W.P(C) No.30350/23 16 respondent has been appointed and has been continuing in service since 15.12.2022.
For these reasons, I am not inclined to hold that the 6 th respondent was not qualified as on the date of notification or to interfere with the selection of the 6 th respondent.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE okb/12.6.24 //True copy// P.S. to Judge W.P(C) No.30350/23 17 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30350/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION NO.
GO(P) 503/2012/H.EDN DATED 12/10/2012 Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.57/2023/LBR DATED 17/01/2023 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 19/12/2021 PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10/01/2022 FOR THE POST OF TRADESMAN IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE STAFF SELECTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 14/12/2022 Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO. B-6- 73/21(E) DATED 15/12/2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE S.S.L.C CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS, KERALA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P8 A COPY OF THE NATIONAL TRADE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER DATED 19/07/2016 Exhibit P9 A COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER FOR ALL THE SEMESTERS Exhibit P10 A COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TATA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ON SEPTEMBER 2018 Exhibit P11 A COPY OF THE ADVANCED DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY THE TATA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE Exhibit P12 A COPY OF THE BACHELORS DEGREE AWARDED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY THE TATA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED GRADE CARD ISSUED BY THE TATA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE Exhibit P14 A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 16/02/2023 Exhibit P15 A COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION SUBMITTED BY THE W.P(C) No.30350/23 18 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JOINT DIRECTOR Exhibit P16 . A COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE MINISTRY OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP Exhibit P17 A COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.355/2023 DATED 06/01/2023 Exhibit P18 A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22.12.2022 Exhibit P19 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.355/2023 DATED 25.01.2023 Exhibit P20 A COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DURING HEARING Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL DATED 06.02.2023 Exhibit P22 A COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ON 07/02/2023 Exhibit P23 A COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 06.02.2023 Exhibit P24 A COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT DIRECTOR ON 08/02/2023 Exhibit P25 A COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.1171/2022/HEDN DATED 30.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT Exhibit P26 A COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 23.01.2023 Exhibit P27 A COPY OF THE F.I.R. NO.4180 OF 2017 DATED 05/12/2017 OF THE POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR Exhibit P28 A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE E-COURT SERVICES Exhibit P29 A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 10.05.2019 Exhibit P30 A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 10.06.2019 Exhibit P31 A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 14.08.2019 OBTAINED FROM THE E-COURT SERVICE W.P(C) No.30350/23 19 Exhibit P32 A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 29/02/2020 OBTAINED FROM THE E-COURT SERVICE Exhibit P33 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM IN SESSIONS CASE NO.100251/2020 Exhibit P34 A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT NO.1, NORTH PARAVUR IN CASE NO. 100251/2020 Exhibit P35 A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 22/04/2022 Exhibit P36 A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT-II, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 07.02.2023 Exhibit P37 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.36780/2018 DATED 05.08.2021 Exhibit P38 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.1246/2021 DATED 21.07.2022 Exhibit P39 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2023 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WHICH WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER AS PER COMMUNICATION DATED 10.02.2023 Exhibit P40 A COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28/11/2017 Exhibit P41 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.
6600/2023 DATED 8/3/2023 Exhibit P42 A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/3/2023 ISSUED BY SRI. M. RAJESH, DEPUTY SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Exhibit P43 A COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19/4/2023 Exhibit P44 A COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11/9/2023 Exhibit P45 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN I.A. NO. 1 OF 2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 6600 OF 2023 FILED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY DATED 4/9/2023 Exhibit P46 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
159/J3/2023/H.EDN. DATED 27/9/2023 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R6(a) True copy of G.O.(Rt)No.176/2021/H.Edn dated 01.02.2021 W.P(C) No.30350/23 20 Exhibit R6(b) True copy of G.O.(Rt)No.924/2022/H.Edn dated 18.06.2022 Exhibit R6(c) True copy of G.O.(Rt)No.923/2022/H.Edn dated 18.06.2022 Exhibit R6(d) True copy of relevant extract of the prospectus for Polytechnic College Admission, 2019-20 issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, Government of Kerala Exhibit R6(e) True copy of letter No.C2/160/2016/Labour dated 29.04.2021 to the Training Director, Thiruvananthapuram.
Exhibit R6(f) True copy of relevant extract of the Competency Based Curriculum for Electrician Trade[Craftsmen Training Scheme (CTS)] Exhibit R6(g) True copy of letter No.DT/3291/2022-F1 dated 03.08.2022 of the State Public Information Officer, Department of Industrial Training, Government of Kerala, addressed to one Smt.Ranjana V.K. Exhibit R6(h) True copy of report of the aforesaid experts along with the file notings, provided along with Ext.R6(g) Exhibit R5A True copy of the communication dated 23/1/2023 of the Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission.
Exhibit R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO. 21/2021/P&ARD DATED 15.09.2021 Exhibit R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WA NO.
370/2023 & WA NO. 398/2023.
Exhibit R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2023 IN SLP(C) DIARY NO. 51903/2023