Kerala High Court
Nirmal M vs The State Of Kerala on 19 January, 2021
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L)
PETITIONER:
NIRMAL M, HSST (MATHEMATICS), PANTHEERANKAVU
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, POST PANTHEERANKAVU,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
2 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 004
3 THE MANAGER
PANTHEERANKAVU HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
POST PANTHEERANKAVU
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 019
ADDL. 4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KOZHIKODE.
(SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT AS
PER ORDER DATED 5-6-2020).
SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).24520/2019(L), WP(C).28966/2019(U),
WP(C).35144/2019(P), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.24520 OF 2019(L)
PETITIONER:
JYOTHILAKSHMI N., AGED 45 YEARS
W/O.PRAKASH M., JYOTHIS, MALAPARAMBA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
EDIYANGARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
3 THE MANAGER, PANTHEERANKAVU HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL, POANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE - 673 019.
4 THE PRINCIPAL, PANTHEERANKAVU HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE - 673 019.
5 SUJITH S., HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
PANTHEERANKAVU HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE - 673 019.
SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI.K.A.BALAN
SRI.V.VARGHESE
SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SRI.S.A.ANAND
SMT.K.N.REMYA
SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES
3
SRI.VISHNU V.K.
KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).24117/2019(L) & CON.CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.28966 OF 2019(U)
PETITIONER:
LEESHMA N.T., AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. BIJU K.P., H.S.S.T JUNIOR (MALAYALAM),
PANTHEERANKAVE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PATHEERANKAVE, KOZHIKODE 673 019.
SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
SRI.K.R.GANESH
SMT.N.R.REESHA
SMT.T.S.LIKHITHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE
OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE
REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION, EDIYAGARA, KOZHIKODE 673 001.
4 THE MANAGER,
PANTHEERANKAVE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PANTHEERNAKAVE, KOZHIKODE 673 019.
5 JYOTHILAKSHMI.N., AGED 45 YEARS
W/O. PRAKASH.M., RESIDING AT JYOTHIS, MALAPARAMBA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 009.
SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SR.GP
SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES
5
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).24117/2019(L) & CON.CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES
6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.35144 OF 2019(P)
PETITIONER:
JYOTHILAKSHMI.N., AGED 44 YEARS
W/O.M.PRAKASH, JYOTHIS, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AS HSA (MALAYALAM), MGM
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ENGAPUZHA, PUDUPPADI P.O.,
KOZHIKODE.
DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
SRI.R.SUDHISH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.
3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
EDAIYANGARA, KOZHIKODE-673001.
4 MANAGER, PANTHEERANKAVU HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE-673019.
5 LEESHMA N.T., W/O.BIJU K.P., RESIDING AT NIKUNJAM,
K BAZAR, ELATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673303.
6 S.SUJITH, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER,
PANTHEERANKAVU HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE-673019.
7 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
(HIGHER SECONDARY DEPARTMENT), HOUSING BOARD
BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SR.GP.
WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES
7
SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI.V.VARGHESE
SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SRI.S.A.ANAND
SMT.K.N.REMYA
SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
SRI.VISHNU V.K.
KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.01.2021, ALONG WITH CON.CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES
8
JUDGMENT
[ WP(C).24117/2019, WP(C).24520/2019, WP(C).28966/2019, WP(C).35144/2019 ] Dated this the 19th day of January 2021 I am considering these writ petitions together because the factual averments made therein are interlayered and the reliefs to be granted one will depend upon the reliefs to be granted in the others; thus making it necessary that they be disposed of together.
2. The issues in these cases revolve around the appointments made by the Manager to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) and Higher Secondary School Teacher (Jr) [HSST (Jr.)] in the "Pantheerankavu Higher Secondary School".
3. The undisputed facts available from the pleadings on record are that 7 posts of HSST and 5 posts of HSST (Jr.) were sanctioned to the School in question by the Government. As per Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules ('KER' for short), as far as appointments to the vacancies of HSST are concerned, it has to be made in the ratio of 1:3 between by-transfer appointees and direct recruitees; while in WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 9 the case of HSST (Jr.), 25% of the posts are to be filled by transfer of qualified High School Teachers.
4. It appears that the Manager of the School appointed Sri.Nirmal M. ― petitioner in W.P(C)No.24117 of 2019, into the first vacancy of HSST, along with a person by name Sujith ― who is placed as Rank No.29 in the seniority list of teachers ― to the second vacancy and then appointed Smt.Leeshma N.T. ― who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28966/19, through direct recruitment to one among the four other vacancies.
5. This led to Smt.Jyothilakshmi N., who was working as a High School Teacher in Malayalam, to stake claim for being appointed by transfer to one of the vacancies in HSST and HSST (Jr). Her contention was that since she is ranked No.20 in the combined seniority list of teachers, the aforementioned Sri.Sujith ought not to have been appointed in the second vacancy of HSST; and that in the alternative, she ought to have been appointed in the second vacancy available to the post of HSST (Jr).
6. Smt.Jyothilakshmi maintains that since she is senior to Sujith, she ought to have been appointed as HSST in preference to him; and in the alternative that since there are five posts sanctioned in the category of HSST (Jr), two among WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 10 them ought to have been filled up through by-transfer appointments and thus that she was eligible to be appointed to the second such vacancy. She consequently contends that the appointment of Smt.Leeshma as HSST (Jr) by the Manager was illegal and therefore, prays that it should be set aside.
7. It transpires that when Sri.Nirmal, Sri.Sujith, and Smt.Leeshma applied to the Educational Authorities for approval of their respective appointments, they were denied the same on account of the afore claims made by Smt.Jyothilakshmi; and in the case of Nirmal, a further objection was raised that he could not have been appointed as HSST since, at the time when the vacancy arose in the school, he had been deployed to a Government School. Sri.Nirmal, of course, says that this objection against him is without basis because, even before the Selection Committee had interviewed him, he had been redeployed to the School on 28.12.2017 and that, going by Rule 2 of Chapter XXIII of the KER, he was certainly eligible to be considered for a by-transfer appointment since he continued to be on the Rolls of the same Educational agency.
8. As far as Smt.Jyothilakshmi is concerned, the records reveal that she had been agitating her claim through the WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 11 hierarchy of Educational Authorities and that the Regional Deputy Director, Directorate of Higher Secondary Education ("RDD" for short) issued an order dated 24.11.2018, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P5 along with W.P.(C) No.35144/2019, wherein he held that 25% of the vacancies in HSST (Jr) had not been filled up by the Manager, since only one among the said vacancies had been occupied by Sri.Sunilkumar and resultantly, ordered her appointment in the second post, further directing the educational officer concerned to grant approval to it.
9. However, this order was challenged by the Manager by filing an appeal before the Deputy Director of General Education (Higher Secondary Department) (for short 'Deputy Director'), who finally issued an order, bearing No.ACDB.1/141677/H.S.E./19 dated 03.12.2019, holding that Smt.Jyothilakshmi is not entitled to be appointed as an HSST since, she being an H.S.A.(Malayalam), can be accommodated only against the vacancy of HSST (Malayalam), which has not been sanctioned to the school yet. In addition, her claim for being appointed to the post of HSST (Jr) was also rejected holding that since there are only five posts sanctioned to the School, 25% of it would be 1.25 and therefore, that it cannot WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 12 be rounded to 2, because in such event, the ratio would be enhanced to 40%, which is statutorily impermissible.
10. That said, it is uncontested that even before the afore order of the Deputy Director had been issued, the approval of Sri.Sujith had been ordered by the RDD through his order dated 30.08.2019, which is produced as Ext.P14 in W.P.(C) 24520/2019.
11. Smt.Jyothilakshmi challenges the afore order of the Deputy Director dated 03.12.2019, in W.P.(C) 35144/2019; while Smt.Leeshma challenges the earlier mentioned order of the RDD dated 24.11.2018, in W.P.(C) No.28966/2019 - but the said order or its challenge is no longer relevant at this stage because this has now been superseded by the order of the Deputy Director. In addition, Sri.Nirmal has filed W.P.(C) 24117/2019 challenging Ext.P9, whereby his approval has been rejected for the reasons already recorded above.
12. I will first deal with the contentions of Smt.Jyothilakshmi, since on it revolves the respective entitlement of the other teachers.
13. Dr.George Abraham, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Jyothilakshmi in W.P.(C) No.35144/2019, argues that since his client was concededly rank No.20 in the seniority list of WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 13 teachers, Sri.Sujith ought not to have been preferred for being appointed as HSST. He then argues that since Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the KER provides that 25% of the posts in HSST (Jr) should be filled up by transfer, two such ought to have been earmarked for the said purpose and that his client should have been appointed to the second of it.
14. In response, Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., learned counsel appearing for Smt.Leeshma; Sri.Peter Christy Jose for Sri.Sujith and Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the Manager of the school, argued in favour of the order of the Deputy Director impugned by Smt.Jyothilakshmi saying that she cannot make any claim to the post of HSST since a vacancy in her subject, namely Malayalam has never been sanctioned, nor available. They added that as far as the post of HSST (Jr) is concerned, there is only one vacancy that can be earmarked for a by-transfer appointment, since the KER prescribes only 25% of the available posts to be so filled up under Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII thereof.
15. In fact, Sri.T.G.Rajendran further submitted that when the RDD had issued orders dated 24.11.2018, his client had taken up the matter in appeal before the Deputy Director because the observations in the said order -- that there was a WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 14 second vacancy to accommodate a teacher through by-transfer
-- was without basis, since this will constitute a violation of the statutory provisions on account of the percentage being enhanced to 40%.
16. The learned counsel for the party respondents, therefore, prayed that W.P.(C) No.35144/2019 and W.P.(C) No.24520/2019 be dismissed and that W.P.(C) No.28966/2019 filed by Smt.Leeshma be allowed, arguing that she has been rightly accommodated to one of the available vacancies of HSST (Jr), earmarked for direct recruitment.
17. When I assess the afore rival positions, I am afraid that I cannot accede to either of the contentions of Dr.George Abraham because it is admitted unequivocally, even by Smt.Jyothilakshmi, that she is working as an HSA (Malayalam) and that she could have been appointed only an an HSST in the said subject. In other words, since she is working as an HSA (Malayalam), she is eligible to be appointed only as an HSST in that subject, but it is admitted that none among the seven posts sanctioned to the school was an HSST (Malayalam). Obviously, therefore, when Smt.Jyothilakshmi can aspire to be appointed only to the post of an HSST (Malayalam) and when Sri.Sujith had been appointed as HSST WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 15 (English) which post was available, she cannot stake a competing claim, she being ineligible to do so.
18. Coming to the appointments made in the category of HSST (Jr), Smt.Jyothilakshmi's contention is that there are two vacancies available for being filled up through by-transfer. However, she admits that the number of posts allotted to the school is only five and that 25% of it can only be 1.25. The Deputy Director has, in the order impugned by her, found that 1.25 cannot be construed to be 2 because then the ratio becomes 40%, which is more than the statutorily permissible limit. He has, therefore, found that 1.25 can be construed only as one and therefore, that the earlier appointment of Sri.Sunil Kumar, which is not disputed by the petitioner, would satisfy the rigor of the aforementioned Rule.
19. I am in complete affirmation of the findings of the Deputy Director because, as rightly said by him, 25% of 5 is 1.25, which can only be construed as being one and not two as contended by Smt.Jyothilakshmi. Perspicuously, therefore, the assertions impelled by Smt.Jyothilakshmi, through her learned counsel Dr.George Abraham, cannot find imprimatur in law and I, therefore, repel them as being without merit.
20. That finally brings me to the contentions of WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 16 Sri.Nirmal which are urged in W.P.(C) No.24117/2019.
21. Sri.R.K.Muralidharan, the learned counsel appearing for Sri.Nirmal, submitted that Ext.P9 order in the said writ petition is egregiously in error because, even though the petitioner was deployed on working arrangement from 14.07.2017, he was on the rolls of the school, being paid salary by the Educational Agency and was, in fact, repatriated on 28.12.2017, before the Selection Committee was convened on 29.12.2017. He relies on Rule 2 of Chapter XXXII of the KER to contend that a teacher who is under the same management is eligible to be considered for by-transfer appointment and asserts that since his client was continuing in the rolls of the same Educational Agency, the Authorities could not have found that he is not eligible for being appointed.
22. I have gone through the pleadings available in this case and I see that none of the assertions of Sri.Nirmal have been controverted by any of the respondents. Ineluctably, therefore, the petitioner's contention, that he was repatriated on 28.12.2017 and that he continued on the rolls of the school until then, will have to be treated to be credible; and this assumes great importance because the Selection Committee was convened only on 29.12.2017. I, therefore, cannot find WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 17 favour with Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No.24117/2019 and am of the firm view that it must be reconsidered by the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, Kozhikode, adverting to the petitioner's contentions and after affording him an opportunity of being heard.
Resultantly and for the reasons above, I dispose of these writ petitions in the following manner:
(a) W.P.(C) No.35144/2019 and W.P.(C) No.24520/2019 are dismissed.
(b) W.P.(C) No.28966/2019 is allowed, though without formally setting aside Ext.P15 in the said writ petition, since it has already been superseded by the subsequent order of the Deputy Director of General Education (Higher Secondary Department); and consequently with a direction to the third respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner therein - Smt.Leeshma, subject to all other requirements and qualifications being met. This process shall be completed as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(c) W.P.(C) No.24117/2019 is allowed and Ext.P9 is set aside; with a consequential direction to the second respondent
- Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 18 Kozhikode to reconsider the proposal for approval of the petitioner - Sri.Nirmal, in terms of my observations above, which shall be done, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him -- either physically or through video conferencing -- thus leading to an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
After I dictated this part of the judgment, Dr.George Abraham submitted that since a fraction of 0.25% remains in excess of the statutory requirement under Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the KER, the Manager may be directed to consider his client for the next arising vacancy in the post of HSST (Jr) through a by-transfer appointment. Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the Manager responded to this request by saying that as and when the new vacancy arises in the category of HSST (Jr), Smt.Jyothilakshmi will also be considered, subject to her credentials and in terms of the statutory prescriptions. This is recorded.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
STU JUDGE
WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES
19
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24117/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
02.06.1997
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
SERVICE BOOK
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF HSAs AS
ON 01.01.2017
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN
MATHRUBOOMI DAILY DATED 30.08.2017
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION
COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER BY THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE DATED 28.12.2017 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.01.2018 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2018 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2019 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE DEO, KOZHIKODE DATED 10.02.2020. WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 20 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24520/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14/7/2017.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE G.O.NO.106/2017/GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DATED 21/8/2017.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30/08/2017.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21/10/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR CONSIDERING THE PETITIONER FOR PROMOTION TO THE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER MALAYALAM.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29/12/2017.
EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P (C) NO.280 OF 2018 DATED 4/1/2018. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16/2/2018.
EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR (ACADEMIC), OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25/7/2018.
EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) 29381 OF 2018 DATED 6/9/2018.
EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24/11/2018.
EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 4/2/2019. EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/8/2019.
WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 21 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACD.B1/141677/HSE/19 DATED 3/12/2019 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION (HIGHER SECONDARY WING). WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 22 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28966/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.106/2017/G.EDN. DT.
21.8.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.5.2010 IN WPC NO.12881/2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/5645/2017 DATED 16.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, PANTHEERANKAVE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, RELIEVING THE 5TH RESPONDENT FROM THE POST OF H.S.A. (MALAYALAM).
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 30.8.2017.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE M.A. DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED. DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SET CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NET CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.1.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A2/326/2018 DATED 16.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ACDBI/106059/2018/HSE DATED 25.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A2/409/2018 DATED 27.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 23 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.9.2018 IN WPC NO.29381/2018 OF THIS HONBLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A2/326/2018 DATED 24.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACDB.1/141677/HSE/19 DATED 3/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION. WP(C).No.24117 OF 2019(L) & CON.CASES 24 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35144/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF TEACHERS AS ON 01.01.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 14.07.2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, GO(MS)NO.106/2017/G.EDN. DATED 21.08.2017 SHOWING THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SANCTIONED POST.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 24.11.2018 PASSED BY THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE MANAGER DATED 04.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DATED 03.12.2019.