Kerala High Court
A. Chandrasekhar vs State Of Kerala on 26 October, 2023
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
PETITIONER :-
A.CHANDRASEKHAR, AGED 48 YEARS
PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE,
SREE KRISHNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NALLEPPILLY,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 553.
BY ADVS.
P.M.PAREETH
AISWARYA VENUGOPAL
NAJEEB P.S
RESPONDENTS :-
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION, B-2 BLOCK, CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM - 676 505.
4 MANAGER
SREE KRISHNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NALLEPPILLY,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 553.
5 SMT.R.SREEJA
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (SOCIOLOGY)
SREE KRISHNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NALLEPPILLY,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 553.
6 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM - 682 026.
BY ADVS.
V.A Muhammed
ANISON M R
P.A.RINUSA(K/000379/2009)
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
-: 2 :-
P.A.JENZIA(K/598/2003)
SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.09.2023, THE COURT ON 26.10.2023 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
-: 3 :-
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.40821 of 2022
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2023
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(1) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P13 and quash the same.
(2) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P15 and quash the same to the extent it grants approval to the fifth respondent as HSST notionally from 23-02-2013 to 24-02-
2013 and regularly from 25-02-2013 onwards as illegal and arbitrary and unsustainable.
(3) A declaration to the effect that the fifth respondent being unqualified for appointment to the post of HSST (Junior) as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy viz.24-10-2011 and having obtained her degree recognized by the University of Kerala only from 25-02-2012 is entitled to hold the post of HSST (Junior) only from that date and Exhibit P12 is legally valid.
(4) A direction to the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Principal with effect from 1/06/2018 as evidenced by Exhibit P1 and to grant him all consequential benefits within a time frame."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and the WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 4 :- learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as HSST (Junior) on 1.12.2011. The interview by the selection committee for selection of the HSST/HSST (Junior) was conducted on 27.11.2011. The petitioner and the 5th respondent and others participated in the selection process. The 5th respondent, who, according to the petitioner, was not qualified for appointment, was also included in the list for by transfer appointment as HSST (Junior). Thereafter, both the petitioner and the 5th respondent were appointed as HSST. The petitioner was appointed on 23.2.2013 and his appointment was approved. The 5th respondent's date of appointment was 25.2.2013 and the said appointment was also approved. However, the 5th respondent challenged the appointment of the petitioner as HSST with effect from 23.2.2013 and the 5 th respondent's own appointment only from 25.2.2013. By Ext.P15 proceedings dated 30.3.2019, the 3rd respondent Regional Deputy Director modified the date of appointment of the 5th respondent as 23.2.2013. As a matter of fact, the period WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 5 :- from 23.2.2013 to 24.2.2013 was treated as notional and from 25.2.2013 onwards as regular. Thereafter, Ext.P13 order dated 31.10.2022 was passed by the Government deciding the issue of claim for promotion as Principal in the Higher Secondary School in favour of the 5th respondent on the ground that the 5th respondent is senior to the petitioner. The said orders are under challenge in this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 5th respondent was a person who had acquired M.A. in Sociology by Distance Education from the Sree Venkateswara University and that the said qualification was recognized by the University of Kerala only on 22.5.2012 and therefore, she would be entitled to approval as HSST (Junior) only from 22.5.2012. It is, therefore, contended that since the 5 th respondent was junior to the petitioner both in the cadre of HSST (Junior) and HSST and since the date of appointment of the 5th respondent as HSST was corrected only by an illegal proceedings as evidenced by Ext.P15 in the year 2019, the petitioner was entitled to appointment as Principal in preference to the 5th respondent. It is, therefore, contended WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 6 :- that Exts.P13 and P15 orders which grant benefits to the 5 th respondent in terms of the principles in Rule 37 of Chapter XIVA KER are absolutely erroneous and are liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of this Court in Rajeswari Devi S. v. State of Kerala [2023 (2) KHC 589] to contend that this Court as well as the Apex Court has repeatedly held that Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIVA KER has no application for deciding seniority of teachers appointed in Higher Secondary Schools. Paragraph 21 of the said judgment reads as follows :-
"21. Therefore the well recognised canon of service jurisprudence for determining inter-se seniority of members of the same service is to be followed. If the date of appointment of two rival candidates are the same, the seniority has to be decided based on the age of the rival candidates. In this case admittedly the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9671/2022 is senior in age considering the age of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7070/2022. Therefore, without relying on Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV(A) of KER, the general service jurisprudence is to be followed for deciding seniority. Hence the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9671/2022 is the senior compared to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7070/2022. Therefore there is nothing to interfere with the impugned orders in W.P.(C) No.7070/2022."
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 7 :-
6. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 5th respondent. It is contended that the 5th respondent was initially appointed as HSA in the 4 th respondent's school from 17.8.1998 while the petitioner was appointed as HSA only long thereafter, that is, on 9.6.2001. They were both appointed as HSST (Junior) on the same date, that is, with effect from 1.12.2011 and their appointments stand approved. Appointment to the post of HSST, though were simultaneous, the petitioner's appointment was with effect from 23.2.2013 and the 5th respondent's was with effect from 25.2.2013. The said appointments were approved on 3.12.2013. On 18.12.2013 itself, the 5th respondent challenged the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 23.2.2013 before the 3rd respondent, which was returned directing the 5th respondent to approach the 2nd respondent. Immediately thereafter, the 5th respondent approached the 2nd respondent. It is in the meanwhile that vacancy of Principal arose in the 4 th respondent's school on 1.6.2018. The 5th respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17781/2018 and this Court by judgment dated 18.10.2018 directed the 2nd WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 8 :- respondent to take a decision in the matter of appointment of Principal in the light of the communication of the Government dated 12.9.2018. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P10 order conferring seniority on the 5th respondent and directing the Manager to appoint the 5th respondent as Principal of the school. The same was challenged before the 1st respondent and the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed by Ext.P12. By Ext.R5(f) judgment, Ext.P12 order was set aside and the 1st respondent was directed to reconsider the matter after hearing all concerned. It is thereafter that Ext.P13 order has been passed, it is submitted.
7. With regard to preference for appointment by transfer to the post of HSST (Junior), the learned counsel for the 5th respondent places reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Viswanathan v. Director of Higher Secondary Education [2005 (3) KLT SN 78 (C.No.91)]. It was held therein as follows :-
"the reasonable method is that when there are several teachers belonging to different subjects entitled for consideration to few vacancies, those posts to which senior incumbents are to be considered shall be set apart for WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 9 :- quota of in service candidate, so that senior incumbent shall not be superseded by a junior incumbent."
In the light of the above judgment, the 5 th respondent is entitled for by transfer appointment to the post of HSST (Junior) in preference to the petitioner based on her seniority in the cadre of HSA, it is submitted.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent that both the petitioner and the 5 th respondent were appointed as HSST (Junior) in the quota reserved for by transfer from qualified HSAs. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Ramesan and others v. Manoj Kumar K. and others [2019 (3) KHC 942] held that there is no complete lacuna in Chapter XXXII, at least in so far in fixation of the seniority as against by transfer appointment to the post of HSST and in view of the provisions in Chapter XXXII determining a ratio 1:3 between by transfer appointees and direct recruits, seniority can be assigned to by transfer appointees based on their length of service in the feeder category of HSA/UPSA/LPSA. In the above judgment, it is further clarified that in the case of direct recruits, there is no WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 10 :- Rule in Chapter XXXII for determining their inter se seniority. The above position has further clarified by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Girija Kumar S. and another v. Rajitha K.G. and others [2019 (4) KLT 315]. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment it was held that inter se seniority of by transfer appointees to the post of HSST has to be determined based on the turn allotted to them based on their seniority in the feeder category, while fixing the ratio 1:3 between by transfer appointees and direct recruits.
9. It is submitted that the facts in Rajeswari Devi S.'s case are entirely different from the present case. The petitioner in the said case claimed seniority in the cadre of HSST on direct recruitment based on her previous approved service in a short term vacancy of HSA. But the issue involved in this case is with respect to inter se seniority between by transfer appointees. Relying on the decisions in Viswanathan v. Director of Higher Secondary Education [2005 (3) KLT SN 78 (C.No.91)] and in Ramesan and others v. Manoj Kumar K. and others and in Girija Kumar v. Rajitha, it is contended that the 5th respondent is entitled for by transfer WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 11 :- appointment and seniority in the cadre of HSST (Junior) in preference to the writ petitioner.
10. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent places reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in A. Janardhana v. Union of India and others [(1983) 3 SCC 601], wherein it was held as follows :-
"28. It is a well recognized principle of service jurisprudence that any Rule of seniority has to satisfy the test of equality of opportunity in public service as enshrined in Article 16. It is an equally well recognized cannon of service jurisprudence that in the absence of any other valid Rule for determining inter se seniority of members belonging to the same service, the Rule of continuous officiation or the length of service or the date of entering in service and continuous uninterrupted service thereafter would be valid and would satisfy the tests of Article
16."
In view of the above judgments, the contention of the writ petitioner that age alone cannot be considered for determining the inter se seniority between the petitioner and the 5 th respondent is contended to be unsustainable in the eye of law. It is further contended, relying on the decisions reported in Balakrishnan v. A.E.O, Vadakara [2005 (4) KLT 64] and in Appukuttan Pillai v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KLT 674] that WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 12 :- the provisions in KS & SSR are not applicable for aided schools. It is in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 36 of the Kerala Education Act that the Government incorporated Chapter XXXII in the Kerala Education Rules (S.R.O.No.1009/2001). Therefore, previous uninterrupted regular service of a teacher in the very same school may not be ignored for determining the seniority of by transfer appointee to the cadre of HSST (Junior) and HSST, it is argued.
11. With regard to qualification for the post of HSST (Junior), the learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that as evident from Ext.R5(b) the 5th respondent acquired Post Graduate Degree in Sociology as early as on 18.3.2010. The University of Kerala has already been recognized the above Post Graduate Degree as equivalent to M.A. degree in Sociology of the University of Kerala. Ext.P3 order is declaratory in nature. Therefore, Ext.R5(e) certificate issued by Sri.Venkiteswara University is valid for appointment as HSST (Junior) in the 4 th respondent's school w.e.f.18.3.2010.
12. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent that the appointment of the petitioner as HSST (Junior) Sociology has already been approved by the 3 rd WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 13 :- respondent w.e.f. 01.12.2011. There was no challenge against Ext.P6 order. Only when the writ petitioner filed a revision petition against Ext.P10 order, for the first time, he raised a contention that the 5th respondent was not qualified for appointment as HSST (Junior) in the 4th respondent's school as on the date of appointment. Thus, there is inordinate delay of more than 7 years on the part of the writ petitioner in raising such a contention.
13. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I notice that the question of seniority being considered is specifically for the purpose of appointment to the post of Principal in a higher secondary school. Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII KER provides for the method of appointment to various categories of posts in the higher secondary schools. The appointment to the post of Principal is to be made by promotion from category 2 under the respective educational agency or by transfer from qualified Headmasters of Aided High Schools under the respective educational agency in the ratio 2 : 1. Category 2 is Higher Secondary School Teacher. Therefore, the respective seniority in the post of HSST (Junior) is also not a relevant consideration at all where two persons are being considered for WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 14 :- promotion to the post of Principal in the Higher Secondary School. In Manager, Nanminda Higher Secondary School, Kozhikode v. Director of Higher Secondary Education, Tvm and others [2015 (3) KLT 307], it was categorically held as follows :-
"17. As we have already stated, rule is specific that promotion is to be effected from category 2, HSST. The basis on which such promotion is to be effected is seniority in the feeder category. Therefore, going by the provisions of the rules, promotion is to be effected based on the seniority in the category of HSST. If the contention canvassed by the writ petitioners is accepted, this very basis will be upset. This can be demonstrated with reference to the case of the writ petitioners themselves. Admittedly, the writ petitioners joined service as HSST (Junior), a post included as a separate category in the special rules and is carrying a lower scale of pay. They were promoted to the higher post of HSST long after the appellants herein were directly appointed to that post. On their promotion, the writ petitioners were on probation for the prescribed period in the higher post of HSST. If the contention raised is accepted and the service as HSST (Junior) is also reckoned for seniority, these promotees will get credit in the service rendered by them in the lower post of HSST (Junior) and on that basis, will steal a march over their seniors in the category of HSST and based on seniority so reckoned, will also earn promotion to the post of Principal. That cannot be the purport of the rule as that will destroy the very basis of the seniority position."
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 15 :-
14. Both the petitioner and the 5th respondent were appointed by transfer as HSST (Junior) on 1.12.2011. Thereafter, they were appointed as HSST on 23.2.2013 and 25.2.2013 respectively. This was approved on 3.12.2013. The 5th respondent challenged the appointment of the petitioner as HSST from 23.2.2013 and her own appointment only from 25.2.2013. This resulted in Ext.P15 proceedings dated 30.3.2019, by which, the 3rd respondent modified the date of appointment of the 5th respondent also as 23.2.2013. This Court, considering the specific provisions of Rule 4(1) has repeatedly held that for appointment to the post of Principal in higher secondary schools only the seniority in the post of HSST is to be taken into account. I see no patent error in the said exercise since the vacancies of HSST (English) and HSST (Physical Science) to which both the incumbents were appointed were in existence as on 23.2.2013 and there is no reason stated for delaying the appointment of the 5 th respondent for two days. Therefore, the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent stand appointed as HSST with effect from 23.2.2013. It is to be noted that the petitioner has raised a WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 16 :- challenge against Ext.P15 proceedings as well on 18.12.2013, soon after the approval for the appointments as HSST. The contention of the petitioner is that the said proceedings are issued belatedly. However, I find that immediately on appointment given to the petitioner and the 5th respondent on 23.2.2013 and 25.2.2013 respectively being approved, the 5 th respondent challenged the said action. It appears from Ext.P15 and the documents referred to therein that it was only on 3.12.2013 that the Regional Deputy Director had approved the appointment of the 5th respondent from 25.2.2013 and the complaint was raised soon thereafter.
15. The 5th respondent approached this Court filing W.P. (C) No.17781/2018 and the 2nd respondent was directed to consider the representation submitted by the 5 th respondent. In the meanwhile, a vacancy of Principal arose in the school with effect from 1.6.2018 and the petitioner was appointed. Thereafter by Ext.P10 order dated 14.3.2019, the Deputy Director of Education upheld the claim of the 5th respondent for appointment to the post of Principal. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.12276/2019 challenging the said order and the 5th WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 17 :- respondent filed W.P.(C) No.18317/2019 seeking enforcement of Ext.P10 order. This Court, by Ext.P11 judgment, directed the consideration of the revision petitions preferred by both parties before the Government. Pursuant thereto Ext.P12 order was passed, which was challenged by the 5 th respondent and the matter was required to be reconsidered. Ext.P13 is the order passed by the Government after hearing both parties. After considering the contentions, the Government found that the contention raised by the petitioner that the 5 th respondent was not qualified could not be accepted since the equivalency granted to the qualification acquired by the 5 th respondent relates back to the date of acquisition of the qualification and cannot be said to have effect only from the date on which it was rendered. Further, it was found that since the 5 th respondent was the earlier entrant into service in the post of HSA, the 5th respondent has to be considered as senior.
16. Several judgments have been relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent to contend that though Rule 37(2) may have no application, the order by which the concerned teachers were appointed as HSST would WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 18 :- be relevant for considering their seniority for appointment to the post of Principal, I fail to see how those decisions would make any difference in the consideration of the issue that presently arises in this writ petition. The petitioner as well as the 5th respondent now stand appointed to the post of HSST on the same date. There is no pleading available on record to decide as to who was entitled to be appointed first to the said post. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a selection process conducted to the post of HSST (Junior) as is evident from Ext.P5 and that in the list of selected candidates, the petitioner is included as Serial No.1 while the 5th respondent is included as Serial No.2. The counsel for the 5th respondent, on the other hand, contends that she being senior in the cadre of HSA, she is entitled for seniority in the cadre of HSST for promotion to the post of Principal.
17. Having considered the contentions advanced at considerable length, I find that the specific finding of this Court in Manager, Nanminda Higher Secondary School, Kozhikode v. Director of Higher Secondary Education, Tvm and others [2015 (3) KLT 307] is that for appointment to WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 19 :- the post of Principal in a higher secondary school, the seniority in the cadre of HSST (Junior) is not a relevant consideration at all. What is to be looked into is the seniority in the post of HSST alone, which is the only post in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Principal. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent with regard to the question of earlier appointment as HST as also the earlier claim for appointment as HSST (Junior) can have absolutely no bearing on the question as to who among the two persons appointed by transfer as HSST on the same day is entitled for appointment as Principal of a higher secondary school.
18. The petitioner submits that he is older in age and though the provisions of the KS & SSR are not directly applicable to posts in aided schools and consequently in higher secondary schools in the aided sector also, it is clear that the principle of older being considered senior in a situation where both persons stand appointed to the post in question on the same day is an accepted means of deciding seniority. Where the seniority in the post of HSST (Junior) is WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 20 :- found to be explicitly irrelevant for consideration for the appointment to the post of Principal in higher secondary schools, I fail to see how the seniority in the yet earlier post of HST is liable to be considered for the same.
19. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the Government in Ext.P13 order cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Government has taken note of the earlier date of appointment of the 5th respondent as HST for deciding the question of inter se seniority in the post of HSST for promotion to the post of Principal. Going by the specific provisions of law as contained in Rule 4(1) of Chapter XXXII KER as explained by this Court in Manager, Nanminda Higher Secondary School, Kozhikode v. Director of Higher Secondary Education, Tvm and others, I am of the opinion that the said exercise is per se illegal.
The writ petition is, therefore, ordered upholding Ext.P15 order, but setting aside Ext.P13 to the extent it cancels the appointment of the petitioner as Principal and directs the appointment of the 5th respondent instead. The petitioner, who WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 21 :- is older in age is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, there will be a direction that the petitioner shall be permitted to continue as Principal and shall be entitled to all benefits thereof.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Jvt/29.9.23 WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 22 :- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40821/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS :-
Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01-06-2018 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY THE GO(MS) NO. 211/2011/GEDN DATED 24-10-2011 Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
AC.C/45638/2011 DATED 22-05-2012 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE NO.
AC.C/028442/2012 DATED 23-05-2012 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA Exhibit P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE POST OF HSST DATED 27-11-2011 Exhibit P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
B4/20401/RDD/HSE/EKM/2011 DATED 28-06-2012 ISSUED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT Exhibit P6(a) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 76/2013/GEDN DATED 23-02-2011 Exhibit P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
B4/3685/RDDE/HSE/2013 DATED 03-12-2013 APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT W.E.F. 25-02-2013 ISSUED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
G/7600/2014/RDD/MLPM/HSE DATED 14-10-2014 APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER W.E.F. 23-02-2013 ISSUED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.
210/T2/2018/GEDN DATED 12-09-2018 WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 23 :- Exhibit P9(a) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-09- 2014 IN W.P.(C) NO. 20849/2013 Exhibit P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
ACD.A2/64353/2017/HSE DATED 14-03-2019 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION Exhibit P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02-12- 2019 IN W.P.(C) NO. 12276/2019 AND W.P.(C) NO.18317/2019
Exhibit P12 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.
3335/2020/GEDN DATED 17-12-2020 Exhibit P13 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.
6288/2022/GEDN DATED 31-10-2022 Exhibit P14 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(MS) NO. 272/2018/HEDN DATED 13-11-2018 Exhibit P15 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
J/11959/18/RDD/HSE/MLPM/K.DIS. DATED 30-03-2019 Exhibit P16 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04-06-2019 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT Exhibit P17 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION AS PER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 DATED 01-12-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P18 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20-12-2022 RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI Exhibit P19 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF THE SCHOOL FOR JULY 2007 Exhibit P20 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03-04-2023 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, SREE VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022 -: 24 :- RESPONDENT EXHIBITS :-
EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO.526/PD DATED 17.07.1965 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE P.G. DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THIS RESPONDENT ISSUED BY SRI VENKITESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATHI DATED 18.03.2010 EXHIBIT R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LIST OF UNIVERSITIES RECOGNIZED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AS ON 15.01.2016.
EXHIBIT R5(d) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 14.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 14.11.2011 EXHIBIT R5(e) TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.B/350/2014/RDD/HSE., DATED 18.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R5(f) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2022 IN W.P. (C)NO.328/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT R5(g) A TRUE COPY OF APPROVAL ORDER BEARING NO.B4/20407/RDD/HSE/2011, DATED 25.07.2012 GRANTED TO THE WRIT PETITIONER Exhibit R5(h) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SERVICE AND PAY ROLL ADMINISTRATIVE REPOSITORY FOR KERALA DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE 'SPARK'.
Exhibit R5(i) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF THE PETITIONER'S SCHOOL.
Exhibit R5(j) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.SVU/DDE/PG(P)/EXAMS/2007 DATED 23.05.2007 PUBLISHED BY THE DIRECTOR, SRI VENKITESWARA UNIVERSITY,TIRUPATI Exhibit R5(k) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO BEARING NO.B VIII/M.A/M.SC/MCOM.EXAMS/2007 PUBLISHED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION OF SRI VENKITESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI,