Nazia Sathar vs State Of Kerala on 13 May, 2022

[Cites 54, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Nazia Sathar vs State Of Kerala on 13 May, 2022

The afore captioned Original Petitions, except 6 cases, have been instituted by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short) and its officers, to impugn the common final order OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..3..

rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal on 22.3.2021 in Original Application O.A.(Ekm) No.1042/2019 and connected OAs. Five out of the those 6 OPs, viz, OP(KAT) Nos. 113, 111, 163, 200, & 226 of 2021 have been filed by the candidates involved in the impugned selection process and who support the stand of the PSC, which has been interdicted by the Tribunal.

The other case, viz OP(KAT) No.324/21 has been filed by the applicants in O.A.(Ekm) No.2165/2021, who are challenging the impugned stand of the PSC, seeking for any direction to include them in the advice list for appointment to the post in question, in pursuance of the above said impugned verdict of the Tribunal. Since the Tribunal has treated O.A.(Ekm) No.1042/2019 as the lead case, OP(KAT) No. 261/2021 filed by the PSC (arising out of the impugned final order dated 22.3.2021 in O.A.(Ekm)No.1042/2019) will be treated as the lead case.

The documents produced in OP(KAT) No.261/2021 and O.A.(Ekm) No. 1042/2019 will be referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise indicated.

2. The prayers in the lead case, viz, OP(KAT) No. 261/2021 filed by the PSC are as follows:

OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..4..

"

i. To set aside Exhibit-P5 order of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 22/03/2021 in OA(EKM) No.1042/2019 and thereby dismiss the Original Application.

And ii. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. There is no necessity to reproduce the prayers in the other OPs.

4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, the learned advocates appearing for the parties who support the stand of the PSC, the various learned advocates who appear for the original applicants, in whose favour the Tribunal has rendered the impugned verdicts, and the learned Additional Advocate General, instructed by the learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent State authorities in these cases.

5. The main issue raised in these cases is regarding the qualifications for appointment to the post of High School Assistant (Physical Science) (hereinafter referred to as "HSA (Physical Science") in the Education Department of the State Government in various districts, as it stood as on the date of issuance of Anx.A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016 and as on the last date of submission OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..5..

of applications thereto viz, 5.10.2016 and more particularly, as to the legality and correctness of the impugned stand of the PSC, that for fulfilling the prescribed academic qualification of 'Bachelor of Science' degree (hereinafter referred to as "B.Sc. degree") in the subject concerned, i.e., Physical Science, the candidate concerned, who has taken B.Sc. Degree with Physics as main subject or Chemistry as main subject, should necessarily have studied Chemistry or Physics as the case may be, as subsidiary subject, to the abovesaid respective main subjects. Many of the original applicants herein have secured B.Sc. Degree with Chemistry as the main subject, but they have not studied Physics as a subsidiary subject in that course, but have studied subjects other than Physics at the subsidiary level.

So also, the other original applicants have secured B.Sc. Degree with Physics as the main subject, and have not studied Chemistry as subsidiary subject in that course, but have studied subjects other than Chemistry as subsidiary subjects thereto. There is no dispute that all the original applicants have the prescribed qualification of 'Bachelor of Education' (hereinafter referred to as "B.Ed.") in Physical Science.

6. It is common ground that, as per the bifurcation of the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..6..

core subjects, a person appointed as HSA (Physical Science) has to teach the students at the high school level in both Physics and Chemistry subjects. The Tribunal, on an interpretation of the provision contained in Clause 7 of Anx.A-1, has held that the above said impugned stand of the PSC is not correct, and going by the provisions contained in Note (3) to Clause 7 of Anx.A-1, the candidate needs to study only Physics as the main subject or Chemistry as the main subject, and that there is no insistence, as per the norms and rules issued by the State Government for regulating the qualifications for the above post, that the candidate concerned who has studied B.Sc. with either Physics as the main subject or Chemistry as the main subject, should have studied Chemistry or Physics, as the case may be, as subsidiary subjects.

It is also common ground that, going by the norms issued by the Government, a person who has secured B.Sc. Degree with Geology as the main subject, and who has also studied both Physics and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects thereto, is treated as qualified for appointment as HSA (Physical Science).

7. The stand of the PSC is that they have not added any new qualifications in relation to the above said impugned selection OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..7..

process, but that they have made the above said insistence on the basis of various Government Orders and norms issued by the State Government, the concluded verdicts of the Tribunal and the Judgments of this Court on the issue as well as the verdicts of the Apex Court in the matter. The Tribunal held that judicial decisions cited by the PSC do not form part of the ratio decidendi of those decisions and that the observations are only made in the context thereto.

8. It appears that during the pendency of the above said selection process, covered by Anx.A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016, the competent authority of the respondent State Government in the General Education Department has issued Anx.A-137 G.O. (MS) No.58/2019/G.Edn. dated 6.6.2019, stating that, for appointment as HSA (Physical Science) in Government Schools, the candidate concerned should have secured B.Sc.

Degree with Physics or Chemistry as the main subject, as the case may be, and should have studied Chemistry/Physics, as the case may be, as subsidiary subject, and thus indicating the impugned stand of the PSC. Later, the Government issued Anx. A-139 G.O. (MS) No.73/2019/G.Edn. dated 26.6.2019, stating that after the issuance of Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019, representations OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..8..

have been received from various candidates, whose applications have been rejected by the PSC, in pursuance of the present Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016 on the ground that, though they have B.Sc. Degree with Physics or Chemistry as the main subject, as the case may be, they have not studied Chemistry or Physics, as the case may be, as a subsidiary subject at the said degree level, and that the Government ordered, as per Anx. A-139 G.O.(MS)No. 73/2019/G.Edn dated 26.6.2019, that the norms stated in Anx. A-137 G.O.(MS)No.58/2019/G.Edn. dated 6.6.2019, will have prospective effect only from 6.6.2019 onwards.

9. The Tribunal has taken the view that since Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 has only prospective effect from 6.6.2019, the same cannot detrimentally affect those candidates who have applied in pursuance of Anx.A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016 and who do not fulfill the qualification envisaged in Anx.A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019. Thus, the Tribunal has upheld the contentions of the original applicants, whose candidatures were rejected by the PSC on the above said ground, and has directed that they should be treated as duly qualified, and they should be included in the ranked list, based on their merit in the selection OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..9..

process, etc.

10. A preliminary objection has been raised by the contesting respondents in OP(KAT) No.261/2021 (original applicants in O.A.(Ekm) No.1042/2019) that the PSC does not has the locus to maintain an Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the above said impugned verdict of the Tribunal. The said parties who have raised the above preliminary objection, have insisted that this Court should necessarily give a ruling on that point. This Court proposes to initially deal with the said preliminary objection, and thereafter would deal with the rival contentions posed in these cases and its resolution.

11. Preliminary objection regarding locus of the PSC to file the above OPs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11.1. It is asserted by Sri. O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel instruction by Sri.P.T.Dinesh, learned counsel on behalf of the original applicants in O.A.(Ekm) No.1042/2019, which has led to OP(KAT) No.261/2021, that the PSC and its officers, who are the petitioners in the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..10..

above OP, have no locus standi to file the above OP(KAT) for challenging the above verdict dated 22.3.2021, rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. (Ekm) No.1042/2019 and that therefore, the said OP is not maintainable at the behest of said petitioners, as they are not aggrieved persons to institute the said OP. It is pointed out that the only relief sought for by the PSC in OP (KAT) No. 261/2021 is to set aside the impugned Ext.P-5 final order dated 22.3.2021, rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.(Ekm) No.1042/2019 and to dismiss the said OA. It is argued by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the said parties that the PSC has no legal right to challenge the above said Ext.P-5 final verdict of the Tribunal, as the PSC is the selection authority, and once the PSC makes the selection and submits the list of suitable candidates to the appointing authority, the PSC becomes functus officio, and the PSC does not fall within the category of "person aggrieved" to maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the verdict of OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..11..

the Tribunal, which has decided on the legality or otherwise of the impugned selection process effected by the PSC. In that regard, it is argued that Articles 320 & 321 of the Constitution of India lay down the functions of the PSC, and it does not perform any function that has not been laid down by either of the Articles.

11.2. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors. [AIR 1973 SC 2216, para 5] wherein it has been held that, once a list is prepared by the PSC, strictly in the order of merit, neither the PSC nor the State nor the High Court can depart from the order of merit given in the list. Further, it is pointed out that the Apex Court has held in para 30 in the case in State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin & Ors. [AIR 1988 SC 162] that the Commission is an independent expert body, and it has to act in an independent manner in making the selection on the prescribed norms, and once the Commission determines the norms and makes selection on the conclusion of the competitive examination and submits OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..12..

the list of suitable candidates to the Government, it should not reopen the selection by lowering down the norms at the instance of the Government, and that if the practice of revising the results of the examination by changing norms is followed, there will be confusion, and the people will lose faith in the institution of the Public Service Commission and the authenticity of selection. Further that, the Service Commission should take firm stand in the matters of making selections in accordance with the norms fixed by law, uninfluenced by the directions of the State Government, unsupported by the rules, etc. After referring to paras 91 & 92 of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the celebrated case in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

[(1997) 3 SCC 261], it is contended by the applicants that the PSC does not fall under the category of "aggrieved person", and that therefore the PSC has no legal right to challenge the verdict of the Tribunal by filing this OP before this Court. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..13..

Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2013) 4 SCC 465], paras 9, 10 & 17 thereof, based on the locus standi of a person to maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is also placed on para 2 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case in Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana & Ors.

[(1986) 4 SCC 268] that the duty of the Public Service Commission is to make available to the Government a complete list of qualified candidates arranged in the order of merit, and thereafter the Government is to make selection strictly in the order which they have been placed by the Commission as a result of the examination.

11.3. The abovesaid contentions of the original applicants, regarding lack of locus standi, have been strongly rebutted by the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC as well as the various learned advocates, who have appeared for the parties who support the stand of the PSC. It is argued on behalf of the PSC that the above said contentions have been made by the original applicants on a complete OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..14..

misreading and misunderstanding of the litigative scenario and that, what is involved in the present OPs filed by the PSC under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, is to challenge the adverse verdicts suffered by the said parties as rendered by the Tribunal.

That, the consideration as to whether a party has the legally justiciable cause of action to institute an original action before the competent court, is not the same as the situation where such a party, who has instituted the original action before the court of first instance, has partly or fully succeeded in that endeavor, and the respondent or defendant therein thus suffers adverse verdict. In such cases, the issue is as to whether such a defendant or respondent, who has suffered an adverse verdict thereby, is entitled to challenge the said adverse verdict rendered by the original court, before the next court in the hierarchy, and that the scenario involved in these cases is broadly akin or analogous to an appellate process, etc. 11.4. It is by now well established that if the Tribunal, like the Central Administrative Tribunal or the Kerala OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..15..

Administrative Tribunal, is established in terms of the provisions contained in Article 323 A of the Constitution of India, read with the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, then the jurisdiction of the High Courts to exercise plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as a court of first instance is divested, and the said power, as a court of first instance in relation to Article 226, is to be rendered by the Tribunal established in terms of Article 323A of the Constitution of India read with the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. However, it has been clearly and categorically laid down by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the afore cited celebrated decision in L.Chandra Kumar's case supra [(1997) 3 SCC 261] that the judicial power conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an inalienable part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and that even a Constitutional Amendment totally divesting jurisdiction under Article 226 would be unconstitutional. However, the Apex Court has held that a Tribunal, so established under Article 323A read with the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..16..

Administrative Tribunals Act, would continue to exercise the role and function of the court of first instance and the said role cannot be rendered by the High Courts. But, after the decision is rendered by the Tribunal, the person aggrieved by the same can file an appropriate petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, before the Division Bench of the High Court, under whose jurisdiction the Tribunal is functioning. It will be pertinent to refer to paras 91, 92 & 99 of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in L.Chandra Kumar's case supra [(1997) 3 SCC 261] which read as follows:

"91. It has also been contended before us that even in dealing with cases which are properly before the Tribunals, the manner in which justice is dispensed by them leaves much to be desired. Moreover, the remedy provided in the parent statutes, by way of an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, is too costly and inaccessible for it to be real and effective. Furthermore, the result of providing such a remedy is that the docket of the Supreme Court is crowded with decisions of Tribunals that are challenged on relatively trivial grounds and it is forced to perform the role of a First Appellate Court. We have already emphasised the necessity for ensuring that the High Courts are able to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of Tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution. In R.K. Jain's case, after taking note of these facts, it was suggested that the possibility of an appeal from the Tribunals on questions of law to a Division Bench of a High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal falls, be pursued. It appears that no follow-up action has been taken pursuant OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..17..

to the suggestion. Such a measure would have improved matters considerably. Having regard to both the afore- stated contentions, we hold that all decisions of Tribunals, whether created pursuant to Article 323-A or Article 323-B of the Constitution, will be subject to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the particular Tribunal falls.

92. We may add here that under the existing system, direct appeals have been provided from the decisions of all Tribunals to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. In view of our above-mentioned observations, this situation will also stand modified. In the view that we have taken, no appeal from the decision of a Tribunal will directly lie before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution; but instead, the aggrieved party will be entitled to move the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and from the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court the aggrieved party could move this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

                            xxxx      xxxx                   xxxx

                            xxxx      xxxx                   xxxx

                           xxxx       xxxx                   xxxx

99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that Clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323- B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the "exclusion of jurisdiction" clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..18..

whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated. "

11.5. So, it is by now well established that though the role or function of the court of first instance may be vested with the Tribunal so established, a party aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, can move the Division Bench of the High Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. As a matter of fact, it is clearly stated in para 91 thereof, that the decision of the Tribunal is subject to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before a Division Bench concerned, and it is also stated in para 99 thereof, that all such decisions of the Tribunal will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court, within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal's Bench falls.

But, for the above said legal decision, so settled by the Apex Court in L.Chandra Kumar's case supra [(1997) OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..19..

3 SCC 261], a party who is aggrieved by an adverse verdict of the Tribunal could challenge the same by moving a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. So, it is only to be held that, where a party, be it an applicant or a respondent in an original application, has suffered an adverse verdict, the said party can challenge the same by moving a proper petition under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, before the Division Bench of the High Court concerned. The scenario at hand is broadly analogous to the situation whereby a party claims that he has suffered a legally justiciable cause of action on account of the commission or omission of the rival party/parties concerned. Then, such a party may initiate appropriate litigative proceedings before the original court concerned, in relation to the said legally justiciable cause of action, and if the said original court renders an adverse verdict, then the said defendant/respondent, who has suffered such adverse verdict, can take recourse to appropriate remedies, in the manner known to law. So, OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..20..

the scenario is, for instance, if a party concerned claims that he has suffered a legally justiciable cause of action, on account of the act of commission or omission of the rival parties concerned, then, it is for him to initiate appropriate litigative proceedings, including a suit, depending upon the facts of the case, and if the original court rendered an adverse verdict to the defendant therein, then remedy is also provided for the same, and it is for the said defendant to challenge it, in the manner known to law, as is envisaged by Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in cases of appeal from original decree or Sec. 100 thereof, in cases of second appeal.

11.6. The legal principles as to who are the persons who are entitled to challenge the verdict of the court below, by setting in motion remedial procedures, as in Secs. 96 & 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are dealt with in the decisions as in Banarsi & Ors. v. Ram Phal [AIR 2003 SC 1989], Ramachandran Potti v. Thankam [2004 (3) KLT 183], Aghina Raj v.

Nayarambalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..21..

[2022 (2) KLT 156 (DB)] etc. The Apex Court has held in para 8 of Banarsi's case supra [AIR 2003 SC 1989] that, though Secs. 96 & 100 does not explicitly explain the persons who can invoke the appellate remedy, it is well settled, by a long catena of decisions, that to be entitled to file an appeal, the person must be one aggrieved by the impugned decree passed by the court below, and that, unless a person is prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree, he is entitled to file an appeal. (See Phoolchand & anr. v. Gopal Lal [(1967) 3 SCR 153], Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha [(1970) 3 SCC 573], Smt. Ganga Bhai v. Vijay Kumar & Ors. [(1974) 2 SCC 393], etc.) Further that, no appeal lies against a mere finding. These aspects of the matter have also been reiterated in Ramachandran Potti's case supra [2004 (3) KLT 183] wherein it has also been held that, even persons who are not parties in the proceedings of the court below, can file an appeal, with the leave of the appellate court, provided he can establish that he/she is prejudicially or adversely affected by the impugned OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..22..

decree. So, in a situation where the person concerned, who has approached the original court and has secured a verdict, which is prejudicial or adverse to the defendant/respondent therein, then the issue is only as to whether such a person is prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree passed by the court below concerned. Of course, the Apex Court has placed certain limitations on third parties, in the proceedings before the Tribunal, in directly approaching the High Court to challenge the verdict of the Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it has been held in L.Chandra Kumar's case supra [(1997) 3 SCC 261] that no party can directly approach the High Court without initially approaching the Tribunal. Ordinarily, if a Tribunal is established under Article 323A of the Constitution read with the Administrative Tribunals Act, then no one can directly approach the High Court without first approaching the Tribunal concerned. (See Rajeev Kumar & Anr. v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Ors.

[(2010) 4 SCC 554], Gireesh Babu v. Pavithran OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..23..

[2013 (3) KLT 453 (DB)], Haris v. Jafer [2021 (4) KLT 155 (FB)], Thiruvalla Government Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd. v.

V.K.Devarajan & Ors. [2021 (2) KLT 25 (DB)], etc.) 11.7. True, that in a scenario where a person wants to initiate litigative proceedings before a court of law, then he has to duly disclose in his petition/plaint averments that he has suffered a legally justiciable cause of action, i.e. he has suffered legal infringement of his rights or interests, in the manner known to law, on account of an alleged omission or commission of the rival parties concerned. So, in a case where an Administrative Tribunal is not notified, in terms of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, then even the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not affected. In such a scenario, where a person who intends to initiate writ litigative proceedings, will have to disclose and establish, in his petition so filed, that he has suffered a legally justiciable cause of action inasmuch as he has suffered an OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..24..

infringement of his legal rights and interests etc., in the manner know to law. But once in a situation where a person files an Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, and secures a verdict against the respondent, who may be a public authority, like the Union Government, State Government, State PSC, Union PSC etc., then the issue is not as to whether the respondent who has suffered an adverse verdict has to disclose any cause of action to initiate the Original Petition, but for that is impossible. The issue then is as to whether the respondent in the said writ petition is prejudicially or adversely affected by the decision rendered by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that condition will have to be fulfilled by a respondent. That scenario will come into play when a respondent in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution wants to challenge the verdict of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition by filing an intra court appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and at that stage the respondent in the writ proceedings will have to disclose OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..25..

that he has been prejudicially and adversely affected by the verdict of the Single Judge. The present scenario of the PSC's locus standi, as to whether the PSC can seek remedy against the verdict of the Tribunal, by filing Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, is broadly analogous to such a scenario and it cannot be equivalent to the scenario of original cause of action by the initiator of a litigative proceedings. The applicants are confusing these scenarios as identical and therefore, their contentions are based on a complete misreading and misunderstanding of the actual scenario involved in the present case at hand.

11.8. The reliance placed by the above original applicants on the decision of the Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

[(2013) 4 SCC 465] is misplaced inasmuch as the dictum laid down therein is in a scenario relating to the disclosure of a legally justiciable cause of action for the initiator of writ litigative proceedings, and is not therefore applicable in the present case, which is the scenario of a party involving the remedial challenge against the verdict OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..26..

of the Tribunal.

11.9. There is no dispute that no explicit or statutory remedy is provided in terms of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to challenge the verdict of the Tribunal. The judicially crafted rule by the Apex Court in L.Chandra Kumar's case supra [(1997) 3 SCC 261] clearly stipulates that a person, who is aggrieved by the verdict of the Tribunal, can challenge the same by filing a petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

11.10. As regards Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan's case supra [(2013) 4 SCC 465], the following aspects would also be relevant: In the said case, the Apex Court dealt with a case wherein the appellant in the civil appeal before the Apex Court (respondent in writ proceedings before the High Court) claimed that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community and the competent authority, after following the due procedure, had issued a caste certificate dated 19.10.1989, certifying that the said appellant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. Pursuant thereto, he was appointed as Senior Clerk, against a OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..27..

vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The employer/Municipal Corporation referred the case to the Certificate Scrutiny Committee, who, after vigilance enquiry, had passed an order dated 29.12.1998, finding that the appellant, in fact, belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community and thus, the certificate was duly verified. The Scrutiny Committee had issued a validity certificate dated 23.5.2000, stating that the appellant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. After the lapse of 9 years, the 5th respondent in the said civil appeal before the Apex Court, filed a complaint dated 9.1.2009 before the Scrutiny Committee for the purpose of recalling the said validity certificate, on the ground that the appellant had obtained employment by way of misrepresentation and that he does not actually belong to the Scheduled Tribe community, and that he professed the religion of Islam and therefore he cannot be a Scheduled Tribe, etc. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the application of the said complainant, on the ground that the Committee does not have the power to review or recall OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..28..

the caste validity certificate. Claiming that he is aggrieved thereby, the 5th respondent, in the said civil appeal before the Apex Court, challenged the order dated 13.3.2009, issued by the Scrutiny Committee, by filing an original petition as Writ Petition No. 3129/2009 before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), praying for quashment of the order dated 13.3.2009, and for directing the Scrutiny Committee to hold de novo enquiry, with respect to the appellant's caste certificate. The appellant contested the said writ petition, denying all the allegations made by the complainant/writ petitioner. The High Court therein had rendered the impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2009, whereby the writ petition was disposed without getting into the merits of the case. But, in doing so, the High Court set aside the order dated 13.3.2009 rendered by the Scrutiny Committee, and remitted the matter to the said Committee, directing it to hear all the parties concerned, in accordance with law. The above said verdict of the High Court, quashing the rejection order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, was challenged in the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..29..

above said civil appeal filed by the appellant therein, who was the beneficiary of the Scheduled Tribe Community certificate. It is in the context of these factual aspects that the Apex Court proceeded to decide the preliminary issue, as to whether the original writ petitioner can be said to be a 'person aggrieved' to file the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the said Court, so as to seek quashment of the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee in favour of the respondent therein/appellant, in the civil appeal before the Apex Court. It may be pertinent to refer to the contents of paras 9, 10 & 17 of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan's case supra [(2013) 4 SCC 465], which read as follows:

"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..30..

right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, [AIR 1952 SC 12], Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 728], Calcutta Gas Co (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044], Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [AIR 1996 SC 2736] and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar [(2009) 2 SCC 784]].

10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved"

does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York [AIR 1974 SC 1719] and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [AIR 1977 SC 1361]).

11. xxxx xxxx xxxx

12. xxxx xxxx xxxx

13. xxxx xxxx xxxx

14. xxxx xxxx xxxx

15. xxxx xxxx xxxx

16. xxxx xxxx xxxx

17. In view of the above, the law on the said point can be summarised to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others. "

OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..31..

11.11. It can be seen that it is in the light of the above decision that the Apex Court has proceeded to decide the preliminary issue as to whether the original writ petitioner before the High Court has the locus standi to initiate writ litigative proceedings to challenge the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee in favour of the beneficiary of the Scheduled Tribe community certificate. So, at that stage, the plaintiff/initiator of litigative proceedings should necessarily satisfy that his legal interest/right has been infringed, and that he has been injured or has suffered injury. The above said dictum laid down by Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan's case supra [(2013) 4 SCC 465] does not have any bearing to the facts of the present case for the reasons stated hereinabove. Hence, we are constrained to reject the above said pleas of the original applicants in that regard.

The other decisions cited by the original applicants also cannot, in any manner, substantially advance their preliminary objection as above. The said decision would also clearly show that it was the duty of the PSC to make OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..32..

available the finalized complete list of qualified candidates, arranged in the order of merit, so that the appointing authority could make the selection in accordance with said advice list made by the PSC. That being so, it shall be the power, coupled with duty, conferred on the PSC to ensure that the said list contains only candidates who possess the prescribed qualifications.

Para 30 of Rafiquddin's case supra [AIR 1988 SC 162] would also disclose that it has been categorically declared by the Apex Court that, once the Commission determines the norms, the Commission should take a firm stand in making selection in accordance with law. So, the decisions relied on by the original applicants in cases as in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors. [AIR 1973 SC 2216], State of U.P. v.

Rafiquddin & Ors. [AIR 1988 SC 162], Miss.

Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana & Ors.

[(1986) 4 SCC 268], Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2013) 4 SCC 465] etc. would not, in any manner, advance the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..33..

case of the original applicants to sustain their preliminary objection as above. The applicability of the dictum laid down by the Larger Bench of 7 Judges of the Apex Court in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261] has also been dealt with hereinabove.

11.12. One of the contentions raised in that regard by the original applicants is that, once a list is finalized by the PSC, then the said selection authority becomes functus officio and that therefore they cannot file the present OPs.

It is common ground that in the present case, we are on the issue regarding finalization of ranked list, and as to whether the original applicants, who approached the Tribunal have the legal right to be included in the ranked list, or whether the action of the PSC to exclude them from the ranked list, on the ground that they do not fulfill the condition in question, is legally correct and tenable.

11.13. After finalisation of the ranked lists, the PSC has multifarious duties and functions, like advise of candidates, adherence to rules of reservation and rotation as per Rules 14 to 17 of KS & SSR Part II, issuance of OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..34..

advice list, dealing with reports of non joining duty vacancies, corrective action in mistaken advises, readvise of candidates thrown out for want of vacancies in certain selections, preparation of provisional appointment chart and final appointment chart as per Rule 14 (f) of the KS & SSR Part II, etc. So, the contention that the PSC becomes fully 'functus officio', after the finalisation of the ranked list, appears to be not tenable.

11.14. So, it can be seen that, as per the scheme of the PSC Rules of Procedure, framed under the enabling provisions of Article 320 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions contained in the KS & SSR Part II, the role and functions of the PSC are not merely limited to the finalization of ranked lists. Even in the preparation of the ranked list, the PSC is invested with the power, coupled with the duty in terms of Rule 11(i) of the PSC Rules of Procedure, in respect of all selections made by them, to determine as to whether any candidate possesses the prescribed qualifications for the post in question, as per the norms of the Government.

OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..35..

11.15. There is no dispute to the proposition advanced by the original applicants that the power to prescribe qualification for the post in question is exclusively vested with the State authorities. But, a duty coupled with a power is invested with the PSC, as per Rule 11 (i) supra, to determine that candidates included in the ranked list etc. possess the prescribed qualifications, as per Government norms.

11.16. In M.C.Binden v. R.C.Singh [AIR 1989 SC 134] the Apex Court has dealt with a case where the PSC had advised a candidate and he was appointed to a post and later the Commission found that the candidate did not possesses the qualification prescribed for the post, and the Commission then withdrew his candidature and cancelled the advice list. The Apex Court held that the decision of the Commission was legal and tenable. The Division Bench of this Court in the cases as in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Harindran [1999 (2) KLT 63 (DB) = 1999 ILR (1) Ker 598 (DB)], Omana v.

KPSC & Ors. [2000 KHC 841 (DB) = ILR 2000 (1) OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..36..

Ker 189 (DB)] etc., held that the limitation period of one year, in canceling the advice memo issued by the PSC, on account of mistake, will not be applicable in a case where the applicant has secured the advice memo on the basis of fraud played on the Commission by placing false information. We have recited the above said provisions, only to have an understanding of the vast duties and functions conferred on the PSC in selection matters. This is so, as it has been very vehemently urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the original applicants that the PSC has become functus officio after finalization of the ranked list in question, and thereby implying that the PSC cannot be said to have any case that they are aggrieved or prejudiced by the verdict of the Tribunal. The PSC is a constitutional functionary, established in terms of Article 315 of the Constitution of India. The functions of the PSC are dealt with in Article 320 thereof. Article 320(1) mandates that it shall be the duty of the Public Service Commission to conduct examinations for appointment to the services of the Government authorities concerned. OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..37..

Going by the provisions contained in the Constitution as well as the PSC Rules of Procedure as well as the provisions of statutory rules framed as per the KS & SSR etc. the role, function and responsibility of the PSC is not merely limited to the preparation of a ranked list for the selection process in question, and it shall also ensure that only candidates who possess the prescribed qualifications, as envisaged by the Government alone, are entered into the field of choice. In the list so prepared, in many a case, if a candidate is excluded from the selection process, by the considered decision of the PSC, on the ground that he/she does not possesses the prescribed qualifications as per Government norms, then litigative proceedings may be initiated by the party concerned, and many a time, in such a case, only official respondents, like the PSC authorities, State Government, Departmental authority, will be made as respondents in the said Original Application. So, in a case where the Tribunal or the Writ Court makes a wrong verdict and intervenes in favour of such a rejected candidate, can it be said that the PSC OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..38..

cannot even challenge the said verdict of the judicial fora, like the Tribunal, High Court etc., as the case may be.

There cannot be any doubt that since the PSC is conferred with a duty and power to ensure that the candidate who possesses the prescribed qualifications, as per the norms alone can be included in the selection process, and the PSC has a definite case that if the verdict of the Tribunal, interdicting in the matter against the said impugned action of the PSC, is legally wrong and unsustainable, then certainly the PSC can say that they are entitled to challenge the said verdict, as they are prejudiced or aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal, High Court etc. The merits of the contentions of the PSC in that regard will have to be examined separately.

11.17. For the issue as to whether the PSC can maintain any remedial action to challenge the verdict of the Tribunal, if no substantial grounds are disclosed in the petition filed by the PSC, then the writ court, as the supervisory court, can reject the said petition in limine at the admission stage itself. That is not the same to hold that the PSC does OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..39..

not have the locus standi and the PSC cannot maintain a remedial action to challenge the verdict of the Tribunal.

The issue as to whether the PSC can maintain a remedial action to challenge the verdict of the Tribunal, and whether they have disclosed sufficient grounds in the challenge, are two different and distinct things. In the light of these aspects, we are of the firm view that the above said contentions raised by the original applicants, that the PSC does not have the standing to maintain a remedial action/legal action to challenge the verdict of the Tribunal, is unsustainable and untenable in law, and is only to be rejected and we do so, and hence, the preliminary objection of the original applicants/original petitioners in OP(KAT) No. 261/2021 will stand rejected and overruled.

11.18. If we were to hold that the PSC does not even have the locus to maintain a challenge against the verdict of the Tribunal, then highly unreasonable and deleterious consequences, detrimental to public interest, would emerge. For example, if a candidate is not satisfied with OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..40..

the evaluation and examination results published by a University, then the candidate can contend that once the exam result is finalized, the university becomes functus officio. Then in such a case, if the candidate contends that the marks awarded to him is blatantly wrong and he deserves a higher score and approaches the writ court by filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and if for some reason the writ court interferes in the matter, can it be said that the university cannot even maintain a remedial legal action to challenge the decision of the learned Single Judge in the WP(C) by filing an intra court appeal before this Court. The answer can be a complete 'no'. If it is held otherwise, then many a time, none of the other students, who have scored higher marks, may be made a party and their rights and interests would also be affected, inasmuch as the university can establish that the verdict of the WP(C) was legally wrong.

So, if it is to be held that the university cannot even maintain an intra court appeal, then the consequences would be highly deleterious to academic and public OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..41..

interest. In such a case, if the university has a case that the decision of the WP(C) was blatantly wrong, for any good reason, then certainly they can invoke appropriate remedial action and it cannot be contended that the university cannot even maintain an appellate challenge, on the ground that it has become functus officio, after the publication and finalization of exam results. In that regard, the exam conducting authority, like the PSC, University, etc., is the final regulator and custodian of public interests, as regards matters in relation to the conduct of examinations, and if a wrong judicial decision has been rendered, then, it is for the said public authority, like the PSC, University, etc. to challenge the same, in the manner known to law, by invoking review, appeal etc, as the case may be.

12. Brief of the factual aspects, various Government Orders laying down the norms of qualifications for the post of HSA (Physical Science) in Government Schools, the case laws, etc. OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..42..

12.1. According to the applicants, who approached the Tribunal, they have responded to the selection process notified by the PSC in terms of Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016 for the post of HSA (Physical Science) Malayalam Medium in various districts in question. The last date of submission of the application was 5.10.2016. Clause 7 of Anx.A-1, which deals with the details of qualifications, reads as follows:

"(7) Qualifications:

A Degree in the concerned subject and B.Ed/BT in the concerned subject conferred or recognized by the Universities in Kerala. (Concerned subjects are specified in Note 3 below.) Note:_ (1) Post Graduates in the concerned subject and B.Ed./BT in the concerned subject are also eligible to apply for the post.

(2) Diploma in Rural Service awarded by the National Council for Rural Higher Education will also be treated as equivalent to Degite for the above purpose. (3) The applicant should have taken physics/Chemistry as main subject for graduation Degree in Geology (Main) with Physics and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects with B.E Degree (Physical Science) can also be considered as an alternative qualification for the post [GO (Ms.) No. 195/96/G.Edn. dated 2-7-1996].

(4) The candidates who have acquired B.Sc. Ed in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics stream conducted by the Regional Institute of Education, Mysore of NCERT are also eligible to apply for the post: [GO (P) No. 117/13/G.Edn. dated 30-3-2013) (5) Post title degree holders are not eligible to apply for the post.

(6) If there is a written (Descriptive/OMR) test, the Question paper for the written test will be in Malayalam. The candidates should answer the questions in Malayalam in the case of OMR Answer Script, answers are to be marked as instructed. (7) The disciplines in which B.Sc./M.Sc. And B.Ed. Degree OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..43..

were obtained should be mentioned in brackets in the application form.

(8) Those candidates who secured B.Ed./B.T. Degree from the Universities outside Kerala should note in the application form, the number and date of relevant orders declaring the said degree as equivalent to those prescribed for this selection. The copies of such order shall be produced before the commission when it is called for.

Note:_ Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II of the KS & SSR will be applicable for this post."

12.2. According to the applicants concerned, they have secured B.Sc. Degree with Physics/Chemistry as the main subject, and they have not studied Chemistry/Physics, as the case may be, as a subsidiary subject, at the B.Sc. Degree level, and that they have studied other subsidiary subjects. The Government norms stipulate that the Degree in the subject concerned and B.Ed./B.T. in the subject concerned, conferred or recognized by any University in Kerala, should necessarily be possessed by the applicants for appointment to the post of HSA in core subjects. That, the subject concerned/core subject has been specified in Note (3) of Clause 7, which stipulates that the applicants should take Physics/Chemistry as the main subject in graduation. A Degree with Geology as the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..44..

main subject, with Chemistry/Physics as subsidiary subjects with B.Ed. in Physical Science, is an alternative for the above said course, wherein the applicants are fully qualified for selection to the post of HSA (Physical Science) in Government school. Further that, their applications for the above post have been rejected by the PSC on the ground that, though they have B.Sc. Degree with Physics or Chemistry as the main subject, they have not studied Chemistry/Physics, as the case may be, as a subsidiary subject, at the B.Sc.

Degree level. Further that, the PSC insists that a candidate with B.Sc. Degree in Physics as the main subject or Chemistry as the main subject, should have studied Chemistry/Physics, as the case may be, as a subsidiary subject, etc. Further, it is to be noted that there is no dispute that a person who is appointed as HSA (Physical Science) has to teach both Physics and Chemistry to the students at the high school level. It is also common ground that the applicants concerned have B.Ed. Degree in Physical Science. The subject OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..45..

concerned, as far as the present core subject is concerned, is Physical Science.

12.3. Per contra, the stand of the PSC is that, as per the norms of the Government, a person who is appointed as HSA (Physical Science) has to teach both Physics and Chemistry to the students at the high school level and the subject concerned, as far as the core subject is concerned, is Physical Science, and that there is no B.Sc. Degree in Physical Science offered by any University in the State of Kerala. That, going by some of the previous verdicts rendered on the issue by the Tribunal as well as the Division Bench of this Court, and later by the Apex Court, it is well settled that, apart from B.Ed. a person who is appointed as HSA (Physical Science), should have B.Sc. Degree with Physics/Chemistry as the main subject and Chemistry/Physics, as the case may be, as a subsidiary subject at the said degree level, or that the Government has ordered that, B.Sc degree holders who have taken Geology as a main subject, along with both Physics and OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..46..

Chemistry as subsidiary subjects, are treated as qualified to hold the post.

12.4. Various Government Orders laying down qualifications for the post of HSA (Physical Science) in Government Schools 12.4.1 The Government has issued Anx. A-2 G.O.(P) No.76/1980/G.Edn. dated 6.6.1980, wherein it has been noted that the qualifications for aided school teachers, as laid down in Chapter XXXI of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 ('KER' for short), have been prescribed in keeping with the modern education requirements, and that, after consultation with the PSC, the qualifications prescribed in Chapter XXXI of the KER, for various teaching posts, as indicated in the last column of the statement appended to the said G.O., will be applicable to the teaching posts in Government Schools as well as for future appointments, etc. In the statement appended to Anx. A-2 G.O, Item No. 1 is HSA (Subject), meaning thereby core subjects, and Item No. 2 is HSA (Language). For core subjects like OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..47..

Physical Science, Natural Science, Social Science, etc. the qualification prescribed for the HSA in the subject concerned is degree in the subject concerned, and B.Ed./B.T./L.T., conferred or recognized by the Universities in the State of Kerala. A reading of Anx.A-2 G.O. dated 6.6.1980 would clearly indicate that the Government has issued the said Order for adopting the qualifications prescribed by the Government in terms of Chapter XXXI for aided private school teachers. Sec. 10 the Kerala Education Act, 1958 deals with the qualifications for appointment as teachers, and it provides that the Government shall prescribe qualifications to be possessed by persons for appointment as teachers in Government and private schools. The Kerala Education Rules have been framed under Sec. 36 of the Kerala Education Act and Chapter XXXI thereof deals with qualifications of teachers of private schools. Chapter XXXI of KER, dealing with qualification of private school teachers, have been added as per G.O.(P) No.146/72/S.Edn dated OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..48..

27.10.1972 published in the Gazette dated 5.12.1972.

A reading of Rule 1 (1) of Chapter XXXI of the KER would make it clear that teachers of private schools will have the qualifications prescribed in that chapter, etc. Rule 2 deals with High Schools, and Category No. 1 thereof deals with the Headmaster of schools, and Category No. 2 thereof deals with High School Assistant. Clause (a) to Rule 2 (2) deals with HSA (Subjects), which is a degree in the subject concerned and B.Ed./B.T./L.T. conferred or recognized by the Universities in Kerala. As mentioned hereinabove, the Government, as per the executive order at Anx. A-2 G.O. dated 6.6.1980, has adopted the statutory rules, as per Chapter XXXI of the KER, applicable for aided school teachers.

12.4.2 A contention has been raised, by the applicants concerned that, Anx. A-2 is a rule or norm stipulated by the Government, in terms of Sec. 10 of the Kerala Education Act, whereas, the PSC has taken the stand that the statutory provisions in Chapter XXXI of the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..49..

KER will not ipso facto apply to Government School Teachers, unless explicitly adopted by the Government.

The norms at Anx. A-2 can be said to be framed under Sec. 10 of the Kerala Education Act, only if it is the one that has been prescribed by the Government, as understood in Sec. 10. Sec. 2 (6) of the Kerala Education Act defines the word "prescribe" to mean prescribed by the rules made under this Act, viz, the Kerala Education Act. A reading of the materials on record does not disclose that the norm at Anx. A-2 has been statutorily framed in terms of the prescriptions contained in Sec. 10 of the Kerala Education Act. On the other hand, it is well known that the State Government has not so far framed any statutory special rules under Sec. 2 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 to regulate the qualification and methods of appointment of teachers in Government Schools, including that of Government High Schools. The provisions contained in Sec. 2 of the Kerala Public Services Act deals with the regulation of recruitment to OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..50..

public service and Sec. 2 (1) empowers the Government to make rules, either prospectively or retrospectively, to regulate the conditions of service of persons appointed to public service, in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala. The rule making procedure is dealt with in Sec. 2 (2) thereof, so that the State Government has the power to frame statutory rules under Sec. 2 of the Kerala Public Services Rules, read with Sec. 10 of the Kerala Education Act, for regulating qualifications, method of appointment etc., of teachers in Government Schools.

Since no statutory rule has been framed under any of these provisions, it is trite that the State Government exercise its executive powers, which is co-extensive with the legislative powers, to issue an executive order to regulate the conditions of service, to regulate the qualification, method of appointment etc, of teaching staff in Government Schools. That apart, Rule 10 (a) (i) of the KS & SSR Part II stipulates that the educational or other qualifications, if any, required for a post shall OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..51..

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 the Government, in cases where the Special Rules have not been issued for the post/service. Since statutory rules have not been framed, the latter part of Rule 10 (a)(i) of the KS & SSR Part II would enable the Government to issue executive orders to regulate the qualifications of Government School Teachers. Hence, the above said norms, issued by the Government, laying down the qualifications for the post of Government School Teachers, is essentially an executive order issued by the Government, as envisaged in the latter part of Rule 10 (1) (i) of the KS & SSR Part II. So, the absence of statutory rules will not make any substantial difference to the present case at hand.

12.4.3 Later, the Government has issued Anx. A-3 G.O. (MS) No.141/1988/G.Edn. dated 13.9.1988, laying down the qualifications for the post of High School Assistant in Government Schools in the core subjects OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..52..

grouped thereunder, namely, Mathematics, Physical Science, Natural Science and Social Studies. Item (b) of the table under Clause 1 of Anx.A-3 G.O. dated 13.9.1988 deals with the qualifications for the post of High School Assistants in the core subject/subject concerned of Physical Science, and it has been stipulated therein that Physics or Chemistry or Home Science as the main subject, for Graduation, is necessary. Later, the Government has issued Anx. A-4 G.O.(MS) No.195/96/G.Edn. dated 2.7.1996, stipulating that B.Sc. degree in Geology (Main) with Physics and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects with B.Ed. Degree in Physical Science, shall be one of the alternative qualifications for appointment to the post of High School Assistant (Physical Science) in Government Schools.

12.4.4 Subsequently, the Government has issued Anx.

A-5 G.O.(MS) No.227/2009/G.Edn dated 25.11.2009, noting that ,as per Anx.A-3 G.O. dated 13.9.1988, it was inter alia ordered that Graduation in Physics or OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..53..

Chemistry or Home Science as the main subject will be the academic qualification for the post of HSA (Physical Science). However, it has been noted by the Government in Anx. A-5 that Physics is one of the basic subjects of Engineering & Technology, and for teaching Physics in high school classes, a thorough knowledge of the subjects, Physics and Mathematics, is absolutely essential. Further, the Government has noted therein that for B.Sc. Home Science (Main), the subsidiary subjects offered in the Universities are Zoology/Botany and Chemistry, and thus, it was noted that a person having B.Sc. Degree with Home Science as the main subject, may study Chemistry as a subsidiary subject, but Physics will not be studied by them, even as a subsidiary subject. The Government thus found that teaching of Physics in high school classes by a teacher with B.Sc. Home Science (Main), who has not studied Physics as a subject at the Graduate level, is not desirable, as it would adversely affect the quality of teaching in high school classes. Accordingly, the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..54..

Government has ordered, as per Anx. A-5, that the qualification in B.Sc. Home Science (Main), as a graduation, will be deleted as a qualification for the post of HSA(Physical Science), specified in Anx. A-3 G.O. dated 13.9.1988.

12.4.5 Anx.A-5 G.O. (MS) No. 227/2009/G.Edn dated 25.11.2009 provides as follows:

"As per the Government Order read above, it was interalia ordered that, Graduation in Physics or Chemistry or Home Science as main subject will be the academic qualification for the post of High School Assistant (Physical Science).

2. Physics is one of the basic subjects of Engineering and Technology for teaching Physics in High School Classes, a thorough knowledge of the subjects Physics and Mathematics is absolutely essential. For B.Sc. Home Science (main), Zoology/Botany and Chemistry are the subsidiaries. Therefore teaching of Physics in High School classes by a teacher with B.Sc. Home Science (main), who has not studied Physics at graduate level is not desirable. It will adversely affect the quality of teaching Physics in High School classes.

3. In the above circumstances, Government have examined the matter in detail and have decided to delete Degree in Home Science as main subject for graduation as the qualification for the Post of HSA (Physical Science) specified in the Government Order read above.

4. The Government Order read above stands modified to the above extent."

12.4.6 Subsequently, the Government has issued Anx.

A-6 G.O.(MS) No.157/2016/G.Edn. dated 20.9.2016, OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..55..

stipulating that the B.SC. Degree in Industrial Chemistry (vocational course) is to be treated as equivalent to B.Sc. Degree in Chemistry, as far as the appointment of HSA (Physical Science) is concerned, and the candidate should have B.Ed. in Physical Science. It appears that candidates having B.Sc. Degree in Physics/Chemistry as the main subject are eligible for B.Ed. in Physical Science courses offered by the Universities in Kerala, and there is no insistence that such candidates should have Chemistry/Physical Science as a subsidiary subject.

12.4.7 The Government has issued Anx. A-135 G.O.(Rt.) No.2748/2014/G.Edn. dated 20.11.2014, which would make it clear that the candidates having B.Sc.

Chemistry/Physics as the main subject, irrespective as to their subsidiary subject, are eligible to get admission for B.Ed. in Physical Science etc. 12.4.8 We would deal with the subsequent GOs as per Anx. A-137 and Anxs. A-139 to A-141 later. OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..56..

12.5. Various case laws on the issue of B.Sc. Degree qualifications for appointment as HSA (Physical Science) in Government Schools.

12.5.1. The verdict of the Tribunal rendered on 9.4.2013 in O.A. No. 368/2013 (Swapna Sukumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.) : In O.A. No. 368/2013, the Tribunal dealt with a case where the applicant therein (Swapna Sukumar) had cleared B.Sc. Degree in first class with Chemistry (Main), Microbiology & Botany (Triple Main), and she also acquired B.Sc Degree, which was accepted by the PSC as equivalent to B.Ed. in Physical Science. Though the applicant therein had studied Chemistry as a main subject, she had not studied Physics at the B.Sc. Degree level, even as a subsidiary subject. A reading of the said decision of the Tribunal would indicate that the PSC had earlier accepted the B.Sc. qualifications of similarly situated candidates, who had either Physics or Chemistry as the main subject, irrespective as to the subsidiary subject. Later, pursuant to some of the decisions of the Tribunal, the PSC rejected the applications of various OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..57..

candidates, including the applicant in the above O.A. However, the PSC had decided not to disturb the advice list of candidates already made from the ranked list. From the selection notification dated 30.4.2018, for which the ranked list was published on 12.3.2012, concerned in the said O.A., a show cause notice was issued to the applicant herein to remove her name from the ranked list, on the ground that she was not qualified for the post of HSA (Physical Science) for the above reason. The Tribunal in Swapna Sukumar's case has placed reliance on a previous verdict rendered on 8.6.2012 in O.A. No. 243/2012, wherein it was held that since a person appointed as HSA (Physical Science) will have to teach both Physics and Chemistry, the candidate should necessarily have Physics/Chemistry as the main subject, as the case may be, and Chemistry/Physics, as the case may be, as the subsidiary subjects, and that this is evident from the stand of the Government in Anx. A-4 G.O.(MS) No.195/1996/G.Edn. dated 2.7.1996, which stipulates that at least the candidate should have studied both Physics OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..58..

and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects in relation to the B.Sc. Degree with Geology (Main). The Tribunal has also placed reliance on yet another previous decision rendered by it on 19.6.2012 in O.A. No.370/2012 (Anx. A-143 herein), wherein the conclusion was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court as Anx. A-144 judgment dated 16.10.2012 in OP (KAT) No. 3407/2012. In Anx.A-

143 verdict in O.A. No.370/2012, rendered on 19.6.2012, the Tribunal has held that, since a person appointed as HSA (Physical Science) will have to necessarily teach both Physics and Chemistry in High School classes, the applicant should necessarily have studied both subjects either as main or subsidiary subject, and since the applicant therein has not studied Physics as one of the subsidiary subjects, she has been ineligible for appointment to the post of HSA (Physical Science).

The challenge made against Anx. A-143 verdict of the Tribunal has been repealed by the Division Bench of this Court as per Anx. A-144 judgment dated 16.10.2012, in OP (KAT) No. 3407/2012 but, on different grounds for OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..59..

arriving at the same conclusion. As mentioned hereinabove, by placing reliance on such a previous verdict of the Tribunal, as rendered on 8.6.2012 in O.A.No. 243/2012 as well as the one rendered on 19.6.2012 in O.A. No. 370/2012, the Tribunal has held in its decision rendered on 9.4.2013 in O.A. No. 368/2013 in Swapna Sukumar's case that the said applicant cannot be said to be treated as qualified to hold the post of HSA (Physical Science), since she has not studied Physics as a subject in the B.Sc. Degree level, though she has taken Chemistry as the main subject thereto.

12.5.2. The judgment dated 18.6.2013 of the Divison Bench of this Court in OP (KAT) No. 1643/2013 and connected cases (Swapna Sukumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2013 (3) KLT 53 (DB)]) : Being aggrieved by the dismissal of O.A. No. 368/2013 by the Tribunal dated 9.4.2013, the applicant therein (Swapna Sukumar) had challenged the same by preferring an Original Petition before the Division Bench of this Court. The said case was OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..60..

heard along with connected matters. The Division Bench on 18.6.2013 has repealed the challenge against the above said verdict of the Tribunal, and has held that, going by the scheme of appointment of HSA (Physical Science) in Government Schools, the candidate should necessarily have a B.Sc. Degree with Physics/Chemistry as the main subject, and such candidate should have studied Chemistry/Physics, as the case may be, as a subsidiary subject thereto. As mentioned hereinabove, the said case arose out of the selection notification dated 30.4.2008, issued by the PSC for selection to the post of HSA (Physical Science) in Government Schools. The qualifications stipulated in the said selection notification dated 30.4.2008 are broadly the same as the one covered by Anx. A-1 herein. In para 11 of Swapna Sukumar's case supra [2013 (3) KLT 53 (DB)], the Division Bench has noted the reasoning of the Tribunal in Anx. A-143 verdict of O.A. No. 370/2012 rendered on 19.6.2012, that a Physical Science Teacher has to teach both Physics and Chemistry in high school classes and therefore, an OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..61..

aspirant to the post of HSA (Physical Science) should have studied both subjects, either as main subject or subsidiary subject. The Division Bench has noted that the Tribunal in O.A. No. 370/2012 has rightly held that the crux of the Government Order G.O.(MS) No. 227/2009/G.Edn dated 25.11.2009 (decision in Anx. A-5 herein) contains a reflection of its wisdom that Physics has to be taught by a teacher who has studied Physics at the graduate level and that otherwise, that would adversely affect the quality of teaching Physics in high school classes, and that it was the said reason that the Government had to remove Home Science from the list of main subjects, included against HSA (Physical Science) as per G.O. (MS) No. 227/2009/G.Edn dated 25.11.2009 (Anx. A-5 herein).

Further that, G.O.(MS) No.141/1988/G.Edn. dated 13.9.1988 (Anx. A-3 herein) was issued at a time when the universities in Kerala offered Degrees with one main subject and two subsidiary subjects, and the concept of triple main or multiple main subjects, as would have been available in the other universities, was not there in the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..62..

universities in the State of Kerala at that time.

Further that, if a student took Physics as the main subject, then the available subsidiary subjects were Chemistry/Mathematics. It was only later that subjects like Electronics were brought in. When Chemistry is opted as the main subject, then Physics and Mathematics were to be studied as subsidiary subjects, and these were all matters that were in the knowledge of the public domain and hence, judicial notice is taken thereof. Hence, the Division Bench reasoned that the Government has clearly envisaged that one who takes Chemistry as the main subject should necessarily learn Physics as a subsidiary subject, and one who takes Physics as the main subject should necessarily learn Chemistry as a subsidiary subject, and this is what led to the executive decision of the Government contained in G.O.(MS) No.227/2009/G.Edn.

dated 25.11.2009 (Anx. A-5 herein) whereby, B.Sc. Home Science was deleted from the acceptable qualifications for the post of HSA (Physical Science), and this clearly underlines the rationale and objective of the Government OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..63..

about the necessity and requirement that one who is to teach Physical Science to the High School students, should have studied physics/chemistry at least at the Graduate level, and all what the PSC has done to arrive at the impugned decision is to give effect to the abovesaid Government decision, as reflected from a conjoint reading of Anx. A-3 herein (G.O.(MS) No. 141/1988/G.Edn. dated 13.9.1988) and Anx. A-5 herein (G.O.(MS) No. 227/2009/G.Edn. dated 25.11.2009). The Division Bench further categorically held in the concluding part in para 11 thereof that the fundamental purpose sought to be achieved is in the larger interest of the future generation of students who have to learn Physical Science; meaning thereby, Physics and Chemistry; and would then have to aspire for Physics, Chemistry etc. The Division Bench, further found in para 12 thereof, that the qualification prescribed is B.Sc. Degree in the subject concerned, the subject concerned is Physical Science, and there is no B.Sc. Degree in Physical Science in the universities in the State. Therefore, the prescription in the PSC notification OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..64..

has to be understood in conformity with Anx. A-3 herein (G.O.(MS) No. 141/1988/G.Edn. dated 13.9.1988) and Anx.

A-5 herein (G.O.(MS) No. 227/2009/G.Edn. dated 25.11.2009). Further that, those Government Orders govern the field of HSA (Physical Science) and that the prescription in Note 3 in the PSC's notification dated 30.4.2008 that "applicants should have taken Physics/Chemistry/Home Science as main subject for graduation" does not mean that, whatever be the subsidiary subject, a graduate in Physics/Chemistry can be treated as qualified, even without having undergone a course of study of Physics and Chemistry at the graduate level. This view is fortified by the view surging from the second sentence in Note 3 in the PSC's notification, which stipulates that degree with Geology (Main), with Physics and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects and B.Ed. in Physical Science, can also be considered as an alternative qualification, and that the thrust is on the study of Physics and Chemistry, at least at the graduate level, in order to enable a person to be appointed as HSA (Physical Science). Further that, it has been insisted that a graduate in Geology (Main) has to study both Physics and Chemistry OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..65..

as subsidiary subjects, and there is no rationale to say that a graduate in Physics (Main), without Chemistry at least as a subsidiary subject, and a Chemistry graduate, without Physics at least as a subsidiary subject, would fall within the zone of eligible choice. A plain reading of the PSC's notification does not lead to the conclusion that its impugned stand is faulty on any count, and that the PSC's notification cannot stand independently of the above said Government decisions. That, the PSC is disabled from issuing any selection notification, prescribing selection qualification, different from the above said decisions of the Government, relating to the prescription of qualification, and that, in the absence of statutory rules, the executive orders of the Government, as contained in the above GOs, would govern the field, etc. These are the core reasonings and conclusions arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [2013 (3) KLT 53 (DB)], and it may be pertinent to refer to paras 11 & 12 thereof which read as follows:

"11. Now, the Tribunal had rightly noticed that the crux of the Government decision in GO(MS). No.227/09/G.Edn. contains the reflection of its wisdom that Physics has to be taught in the High School classes by a teacher who has studied Physics at the graduate level and that, otherwise, that would adversely affect the quality of teaching Physics in High School classes. It was that reason that led the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..66..

Government to remove Home Science from the list of main subjects included against High School Assistant (Physical Science). Remember; GO(MS). No.141/88/G.Edn. was issued when the Universities in Kerala offered degree with one main subject and two subsidiary subjects. The concept of triple main or multiple main subjects, as would have then been available in other Universities, was then, just not there in the Universities in Kerala. GO(MS).No.141/88/G.Edn. was issued having only in view, the Universities in Kerala and the qualifications awarded by them or recognised by them. When a student takes Physics as a main subject, the then available subsidiaries were Chemistry and Mathematics. Later, Electronics was also brought in. When Chemistry is opted as the main subject, Physics and Mathematics were to be the subsidiaries. These are matters of knowledge in public domain and we take judicial notice of those situations. Hence, we have no doubt in our mind that it was visioned by the Government while issuing GO(MS).No.141/88/G.Edn., that one who takes Chemistry as main subject would necessarily learn Physics as a subsidiary subject at graduate level and one who takes Physics as main subject would necessarily learn Chemistry as a subsidiary subject. The expression of such vision and mind of governance through the executive decision of the Government, contained in G.O.(MS). No.227/09/G.Edn. clearly underlines the rationale of the necessity and the requirement that, one who is to teach Physical Science to the High School students should be one who has studied Physics and Chemistry, at least, at the graduate level. All that the PSC has done to arrive at the impugned decision is to give effect to the Governmental decisions and the logical reasoning, as reflected on a conjoint reading of GO(MS). No.141/88/G.Edn. and GO(MS).No.227/09/G.Edn., in the backdrop of the Tribunal's reasoning and decision contained in its order dated 19.6.2012 in O.A.No.370 of 2012. We find no infirmity in it because, the fundamental purpose sought to be achieved is the larger interest of the future generation of students who have to learn Physical Science; meaning thereby, Physics and Chemistry; and would, then have to aspire for pastures beyond.

12.The question then, would be as to whether the present exercise by the PSC amounts to infraction of the notification that it had issued. The afore-quoted extract from that notification shows that a degree in the concerned subject is what is prescribed. Concerned subject is Physical Science. There is no graduation in Physical Science. Therefore, we have to understand the prescription in the PSC notification to be in conformity with GO(MS).No.141/88/G.Edn. and GO (MS).No.227/09/G.Edn. which are executive orders of the Government, to whose service the recruitment is proposed. Those Government Orders governed the field of selection and appointment to the category of High School Assistants (Physical Science). The prescription in the PSC's notification that "applicants should have taken Physics/Chemistry/Home Science as main subject for graduation" does not mean that whatever be the subsidiary subjects, a graduate in Physics or Chemistry can be treated as qualified, even without having undergone a course of study of Physics and Chemistry at the graduate level. This view is fortified by the view surging from the second sentence in Note 3 in the PSC's notification, which says that degree in Geology (main) with Physics and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects and B.Ed. degree (Physical Science) can also be considered as an alternative qualification. Hence, we have no doubt that the thrust is on study of Physics and Chemistry at least at the graduate level, for one to be an HSA (Physical Science). If it were to be insisted that a graduate in Geology main, has to study both Physics and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects, there is no rationale to say that a graduate with Physics main, without Chemistry at least as a subsidiary subject, and a Chemistry graduate, without Physics as at least a subsidiary subject, would fall within the zone of choice. A plain reading of the PSC's notification does not lead to OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..67..

any conclusion that its stand impugned before the Tribunal is faulty on any count. It is not contrary to the PSC's notification. Not only that, the PSC's notification cannot stand independent of GO(MS). No.141/88/G.Edn. and GO(MS).No.227/09/G.Edn. Remember; the PSC could not have issued any notification prescribing a qualification different from the decisions of the Government relating to the prescription of qualification. In the absence of statutory rules, the executive decisions of the Government as contained in those Government Orders govern. A ll taken together, the impugned decision of the Tribunal does not merit interference at our hands in exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution. It does not work injustice. "

Further, in para 13, the Division Bench has held that the argument, based on hostile discrimination, has been rightly repelled by the Tribunal on the ground that, just because any ineligible person has already been advised before the earlier decision of the Tribunal, the PSC cannot be ordered to repeat such illegality, merely because it has decided not to disturb the advice lists already made.

12.5.3. Judgment dated 8.1.2015 rendered by the Apex Court in Civil appeal Nos. 226-27 of 2015 and connected civil appeals [Swapna Sukumar & Ors. v.

State of Kerala & Ors. (2015) 11 SCC 307] :

The above said decision of the Division Bench in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [2013 (3) KLT 53 (DB)], was challenged by the unsuccessful petitioners therein, by filing SLPs before the Apex Court, which culminated in Civil Appeals as above, in which the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..68..

Apex Court has rendered the final verdict on 8.1.2015.

In para 6 of Swapna Sukumar's case supra [(2015) 11 SCC 307], the Apex Court has noted the reasonings of the Division Bench of this Court, on the basis of the decision of the Government in G.O.(MS) No. 227/2009/G.Edn. dated 25.11.2009 (Anx. A-5 herein) and the same reads as follows:

"6. While rejecting the claim of the appellants what weighed with the Division Bench of the High Court was the content of the reasoning mentioned in the Notification dated 25-11-2009 in GOMS No. 2007 of 2009. In Para 2 of the said Notification it was stated as under:

"2. Physics is one of the basic subjects of Engineering and Technology. For teaching Physics in High School classes, a thorough knowledge of the subjects Physics and Mathematics is absolutely essential. For BSc Home Science (main), Zoology/Botany and Chemistry are the subsidiaries. Therefore, teaching of Physics in High School classes by a teacher with BSc Home Science (main), who has not studied Physics at graduate level is not desirable. It will adversely affect the quality of teaching Physics in High School classes." (emphasis supplied) "

In para 7 thereof, the Apex Court has held that the Tribunal as well as the Division Bench of this Court was persuaded to hold the candidate, who had secured qualification in Chemistry/Physics, but who did not either have Chemistry/Physics as the main subject, but either Physics/Chemistry as ancillary subjects as OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..69..

ineligible, and this was mainly on the basis of the decision of the Government as effected in para 2 of G.O.(MS) No. 227/2009/G.Edn. dated 25.11.2009, which has been extracted in para 6 of the above judgment. In para 8, the Apex Court has specifically noted that the selection notification in that case was issued by the PSC on 30.4.2008, whereas G.O.(MS) No. 227/2009/G.Edn. was issued only subsequently on 25.11.2009 (Anx. A-5 herein). Therefore, from the date when the selection notification dated 30.4.2008 was issued by the PSC in the said case, the qualifications prescribed was Graduation with Physics/Chemistry as the main subject along with B.Ed. in Physical Science and therefore, going by the rule which prevailed as on the date of issuance of the selection notification dated 30.4.2008, it is not in dispute that the appellants therein are duly qualified, and therefore the respondent PSC also considered their application and all their claims were included in the ranked list.

Further, in para 9 thereof the Apex Court has held OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..70..

that, when the relevant rule is examined, it has to be held that the appellants were duly qualified and fully eligible to be qualified, and eligible to apply for the post, and further in paras 10 & 13 thereof, the Apex Court has made it clear that the abovesaid decision of the Apex Court is rendered without setting any precedent for future selection and recruitment.

Accordingly, relief was granted by directing the respondent PSC to carry out the exercise of making the present impugned selection therein, pursuant to the selection notification dated 30.4.2008 considering the ranked list, by strictly applying the norms as it existed as on the date of the selection notification dated 30.4.2008, which stipulated the qualifications. It will be pertinent to refer to paras 7, 8, 10 & 13 of the above said verdict of the Apex Court in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [(2015) 11 SCC 307], which read as follows:

"7. The Tribunal as well as the Division Bench was, therefore, persuaded to hold that the appellants who were qualified Chemistry/Physics graduates/ Postgraduates who did not have either Physics or Chemistry as ancillary subjects were ineligible. Apart OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..71..

from the abovereferred to GO, there was no other substantive objection which was placed either before the Tribunal or before the High Court in order to disentitle the appellants from challenging the order of deletion of their names from the Ranking List.

8. When we heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that as on the date when Notification dated 30-4-2008 was issued, the qualification as prescribed was Graduation in Physics or Chemistry as main subject along with Bachelor's Degree in Physical Sciences as a basic subject. Therefore going by the rule which prevailed as on the date of the issuance of the notification calling for applications, it is not in dispute that all the appellants were duly qualified to apply for the post and the second respondent Public Service Commission also duly considered their applications and all their names were ultimately included in the Ranking List prepared by the second respondent. Even, as on date, it is stated that the said qualification continued to remain for the post of High School Assistant (Physical Sciences).

9. xxxx xxxx xxxx

10. Therefore, without setting up as a precedent, in future selections, the second respondent Public Service Commission can be directed to carry out the exercise of making the present recruitment and appointment pursuant to the Notification dated 30-4-2008 considering the Ranking List by strictly applying the Rules as it existed on the date of that notification which prescribed the qualifications. When the second respondent and the State extended the said benefit to those candidates in the Ranking List who were fortunate to have their names appear in the beginning part of the same Ranking List, there is no reason to deny the said benefit to those whose names appeared in the bottom of the list.

11. xxxx xxxx xxxx

12. xxxx xxxx xxxx

13. We make it clear that we pass the abovesaid order in the peculiar facts of these cases. This cannot be, however, quoted as a precedent in future recruitments. Since the appellants were fighting this litigation by approaching the Tribunal at the earliest point of time and have come up to this Court, it is needless to state that the expiry of the Ranking List should not stand in the way for considering the names of the appellants for issuing the appointment orders in accordance with the procedure prescribed as directed in this order. "

OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..72..

12.5.4. The judgment dated 21.7.2015 of the Division Bench of this Court in OP (KAT) Nos. 2904/2013, & 2222/2015 [Kerala Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Divya P. & Anr. [2016 (4) KHC 321 (DB)] : The very same selection notification dated 30.4.2008 considered by the Tribunal, the Division Bench and the Apex Court in Swapna Sukumar's case was the subject matter for consideration in Divya's case supra [2016 (4) KHC 321 (DB)]. A reading of para 1 would indicate that the main issue considered by the Division Bench therein was the learning of Physics and Chemistry, at least as a subsidiary subject, if not as the main subject, is mandatory for getting appointment as HSA (Physical Science). The claimant parties therein had studied Polymer Chemistry as the main subject and had not studied Physics at any level of graduation or post graduation. After noting the contents of paras 10, 14 & 15 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [(2015) 11 SCC 307], the Division Bench of this Court, in Divya's case, has OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..73..

taken the view that the said verdict of the Apex Court was intended to be extended to only those who were parties before the Apex Court, particularly considering the long standing litigative proceedings persuaded by the parties at different levels, and that a direction was issued to the PSC to include the names of the appellants therein to consider for advice list and appointment, and that the Apex Court did not give any direction to recast the entire list, based on the observations therein, and no law has been declared to the effect that the judgment in challenge was wrong, but for molding the reliefs in respect of persons who were appellants before the Apex Court, and that the Apex Court has clearly and categorically ordered in paras 10 & 13 of Swapna Sukumar's case supra [(2015) 11 SCC 307], that the said direction of the Apex Court therein shall not be a precedent for future selection and recruitments. The Division Bench further clearly noted in para 11 of Divya's case supra [2016 (4) KHC 321 (DB)] that some other persons also OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..74..

sought to secure benefits, as prayed for by the parties, who filed separate interlocutory applications before the Apex Court, and all those interlocutory applications were dismissed by the Apex Court, with liberty to the parties to workout their remedy, if any, before the appropriate forum. Hence, the Division Bench found that the beneficial directions issued by the Apex Court in Swapna Sukumar's case supra, need not be extended to the petitioner in that case [OP(KAT) No. 222/2015], who was unsuccessful before the Tribunal, as her original application was dismissed as early as on 18.9.2012, etc. As far as the other case filed by the PSC [OP(KAT) No. 2904/2013] is concerned, the Division Bench has noted that, in the original application filed by the said party before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had granted relief to him, which was sought to be challenged by the PSC by filing OP (KAT) No. 2904/2013, and since the relief already granted by the Tribunal was in tune with that granted by the Apex Court in Swapna Sukumar's case supra, the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..75..

Division Bench did not interfere with the matter, for the reasons stated in para 16 of the judgment. It will be pertinent to refer to paras 10 & 11 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Divya's case supra [2016 (4) KHC 321 (DB)], which read as follows:

"10. It is to be noted that the grievance projected before the Apex Court was with reference to the subsequent deletion of names of the concerned persons from the rank list already published by the PSC, allegedly for not possessing the requisite qualification (Para 10 of the judgment). It was after taking note of the particular facts and circumstances, that the Apex Court observed (in paragraph 11) that, without setting up a precedent in future selections, the PSC could be directed to carry out the exercise to the requisite extent as specified therein, in connection with the placement given in the ranked list and the consequence resulted because of subsequent deletion. It was accordingly, that an observation was made in paragraph 13 of the verdict, that the proceedings of the PSC, particularly the show - cause notice referred to in the statement filed, pursuant to which deletion of names of the appellants was made from the rank list, was set aside.

11. The exercise to be pursued by the PSC as per Ext. P9 judgment is contained in paragraph 14, which reads as follows:

"14. The names of the appellants in the Ranking list dated 14th June, 2011, 18th October, 2011, 28th November, 2012, 28th December, 2011, 4th January, 2012, 2nd February, 2012, 6th February, 2012, 15th February, 2012, 21st February, 2012 and 12th March, 2012, shall stand restored and the respondents are directed to operate the said Ranking List on its own merits and wherever it finds the appellants suitable and vacancies remain, appointment order shall be issued expeditiously. The first respondent and the second respondent - Commission shall carry out the above - said exercise in accordance with the procedure prescribed expeditiously preferably within a period of two months."

The position made clear in the next paragraph, i.e. 15, OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..76..

is also extracted hereunder:

"15. We make it clear that we pass the above said order in the peculiar facts of these cases. This cannot be, however, quoted as a precedent in future recruitments. Since the appellants were fighting this litigation by approaching the Tribunal at the earliest point of time and have come up to this Court, it is needless to state that the expiry of the Ranking List should not stand in the way for considering the names of the appellants for issuing the appointment orders in accordance with the procedure prescribed as directed in this order."

From the above, it is evident that the benefit of Ext. P9 verdict of the Apex Court was intended to be extended only to those who were parties before the Supreme Court, particularly considering the long standing litigations being pursued by the parties at different levels and in turn directing the PSC to have the names of the appellants to be considered for issuing appointment orders. The Apex Court did not give any general direction to recast the entire rank list, based on the observations therein, and no law has been declared to the effect that the judgment under challenge was wrong or unsustainable in law, but for moulding the reliefs in respect of the persons, who were appellants before the Apex Court. It is for this reason, that the Apex Court said it point - blank, that the same shall never be treated as a precedent for future recruitment. It is also relevant to note that, some other persons sought to have the benefit as prayed for by the parties before the Supreme Court, by filing separate IAs. But no interference was made and the IAs were dismissed by the Apex Court, with liberty to the parties to work out their remedy, if any, before the appropriate forum, as held in paragraph 16 of the judgment. This being the position, this Court finds that the benefit of Ext. P9 judgment is not liable to be extended to the petitioner in OP (KAT) 222 of 2015, who lost the case before the Tribunal way back in 2012, when her OA was dismissed as per Ext. P3 judgment dated 18/09/2012, who did not choose to challenge the proceedings either by filing a Review Petition or by way of Original Petition or by moving the Apex Court in accordance with law."

12.5.5. The judgment dated 26.10.2019, rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..77..

Abitha [2019 (4) KLT 726]: The Division Bench in this case considered a similar issue, involving qualifications for the post of HSA (Physical Science) in aided private schools. The petitioner therein graduated in Biochemistry with Chemistry and Microbiology as subsidiary subjects, and she had not studied Physics as a subsidiary subject. Her appointment as HSA (Physical Science), rendered by the management of the school, was not approved by the educational authorities on the ground that a teacher who was appointed as HSA (Physical Science) should necessarily have studied Physics/Chemistry as the main subject at the Graduate level. The Division Bench in Abitha's case supra placed reliance on paras 11 & 12 of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [2013 (3) KLT 53 (DB)], wherein the Division Bench, in para 6 of Abitha's case supra, has held that, though it is not specifically mentioned in the Kerala Education Rules that for HSA (Physical Science) Graduation in Physics/Chemistry is mandatory, by OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..78..

subsequent Government Orders of the year 1988 and 2009, which also is permissible in terms of the KER, the qualification has been clearly spelled out and that, if the said qualification is diluted, in any manner, as held in Swapna Sukumar's case supra, it will affect the students substantially, etc. It will be pertinent to refer to para 6 of Abitha's case supra [2019 (4) KLT 726], which reads as follows:

"6. Of course, Swapna Sukumar (supra) lays down the law on the subject and there cannot be a deviation from the law laid down by the Division Bench. Nothing has been brought before this Court to doubt the judgment in Swapna Sukumar (supra). In fact, the learned Single Judge, though had referred to Swapna Sukumar (supra), the purpose and intend of the said judgment has not been adverted to. If it had been adverted to, a different view would not have been taken. It is settled law that when a qualification is prescribed by way of Rules or Orders as the case may be, every authority is bound to comply with the said Rules or Orders. In this case, though it was not specifically mentioned in K.E.R., that for H.S.A. (Physical Science) graduation in Physics and Chemistry is mandatory, by the Government Orders of the year 1988 and 2009, which also is permissible in terms of K.E.R., the qualification has been clearly spelled out. If the said qualification is diluted in any manner as held in Swapna Sukumar (supra), it will affect the students substantially. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis that when Biochemistry is a subject for B.Ed course in Physical Science, why not it be considered as qualification for H.S.A. as well. But it is for the Government to ultimately decide the issue and it is not for the Court to dilute the essential qualification in any manner. Though the learned counsel for the 1st respondent had relied upon another Government Order dated 6.6.2019 produced as Annexure R1(c), it does not have any relevance to the factual aspects involved in this case. "

OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..79..

12.6. Subsequent GOs as per Anx. A-137 and Anxs.

A-139 to A-141: The Government has issued Anx. A-137 G.O.(MS) No. 58/2019/G.Edn. dated 6.6.2019, on the basis of the recommendations of the State Council of Educational Research and Training ('SCERT' for short). A reading of Anx. A-137 would indicate that a lot of representations were received from persons having B.Sc. Degree in Statistics, Computer Applications, Mathematics, Electronics, etc, urging that such qualifications may also be considered as acceptable for appointment as HSA (Physical Science), and further that the views of the SCERT be also examined. In para 2 of Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019, it is noted that the persons appointed as HSA (Physical Science) in Government schools are having B.Sc.

Degree with Physics/Chemistry, one of which is the main subject and another is the subsidiary subject, and that such teachers are taking classes for Physics and Chemistry in the high school section. Further, it is noted that if the candidates, who possess B.Sc. Degree OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..80..

either with Physics/Chemistry as the main subject, but does not have Chemistry/Physics, as the case may be, as subsidiary subject thereto, but have studied other subjects like Statistics, Computer Applications, Mathematics, Electronics, etc, then, they may not be able to effectively handle classes at high school level.

Hence, the Government has ordered, in para 3 thereof, that those who have studied Physics/Chemistry as the main subject, but has not studied Chemistry/Physics, as the case may be, as the subsidiary subject, will not be able to effectively take classes in those subjects at the high school level, etc. Only candidates who have taken B.Sc. Physics/Chemistry as the main subject, with Chemistry/Physics, as the case may be, as a subsidiary subject, alone could be appointed as HSA (Physical Science). However, it is ordered in the last para thereof that the said stipulation will not affect teachers already appointed as HSA (Physical Science) in Government schools and aided schools. Later, the Government has issued Anx. A-139 G.O.(MS) No. 73/2019/G.Edn dated OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..81..

26.6.2019 stating that, though the Government has issued Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 as above, subsequently, representations were received from candidates, who were rejected by the PSC, pursuant to the selection notification issued in the year 2016, on the ground that they have not studied both Physics and Chemistry as main or subsidiary subjects. Hence, the Government has ordered that the stipulations in Anx.A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 will have effect only from 6.6.2019. Subsequently, the Government has issued Anx. A-140 G.O.(MS) No. 118/2019/G.Edn.

dated 8.8.2019, inter alia ordering therein, that those candidates who have already secured B.Sc. Degree with Physics/Chemistry as the main subject, but without having studied Chemistry/Physics, as the case may be, as subsidiary subject thereto as on 6.6.2019, as well as those persons who are studying such B.Sc. courses, as on 6.6.2019, as well as the statutory claimants in aided schools, as per Chapter XIV (A) Rules 43, 51A & 51B of the Kerala Education Rules, as on 6.6.2019, will stand OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..82..

exempted from the stipulations in Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019. Later, a slight corrigendum to Anx.A-140 G.O. dated 8.8.2019 has been issued as per Anx. A-141 G.O.(MS) No. 128/2019/G.Edn. dated 20.8.2019.

13. Now we would enter into the rival contentions and the resolution thereof.

14. Rival contentions : It is contended by the applicants that no stipulation has been made by the Government, prior to the issuance of Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019, that the candidate concerned should have acquired B.Sc. Degree with Physics/Chemistry, as the case may be, as the main subject, and Chemistry/Physics as a subsidiary subject thereto, in order to be appointed as HSA (Physical Science) in Government Schools.

Further, such a stipulation has also not been in Clause 7 of Anx. A-1 selection notification issued in the instant case, whereas Note (3) to Clause 7 of Anx. A-1 deals with concerned subjects (sic - subjects concerned), as envisaged in the operative portion of Clause 7 thereto, and further that, it is only in a case where the candidate is having a degree in Geology (Main), that it has been OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..83..

insisted that such a candidate should have studied both Physics and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects, etc., apart from B.Ed. degree in Physical Science. Therefore, candidates, like the applicants, who have secured B.Sc. degree with Physics/Chemistry as the main subject, irrespective as to the subsidiary subject, have to be treated as qualified, in terms of Note (3) to Clause 7 of Anx. A-1 selection notification. Further that, the above said verdicts of the Tribunal, the Division Bench of this Court, etc. to the contrary, does not reflect the ratio decidendi of those decisions, and that mere observations in those judgements cannot be taken as ratiocination or reasonings for resolving the issues posed in those cases, and such observations cannot be treated as the main reasoning to form part of the ratio decidendi of those verdicts, for arriving at the resolution of issues in those cases. More cardinally, it is urged by them that, for the first time, the present stipulation has been made only as per the issuance of Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019, which has been issued long after the date of issuance of Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016, and even after the last date of submission of the application thereto on 5.10.2016. Further that, none other than the State Government, has ordered, as per OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..84..

Anx. A-139 G.O.(MS) No. 73/2019/G.Edn dated 26.6.2019, that the stipulations in Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 will have effect only from 6.6.2019 onwards. Further, at any rate, exceptions have been ordered by the Government as per Anxs. A-140 & A-141 GOs.

It is thus, strongly urged by those applicants, who have succeeded before the Tribunal, that the impugned rejection of the PSC can be justified only if Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 is also reckoned as applicable to the present selection, and that since Anx. A-137 G.O. will have prospective effect only from 6.6.2019, it cannot, in any manner, detrimentally affect the rights and interests of the candidates, who have responded in terms of Anx. A-1 notification dated 30.8.2016. Further, it is urged that, it is well settled that the norms of the selection process cannot be changed midway and further that, it is well established that a candidate gets limited right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the selection notification, and since the norm at Anx. A-137 dated 6.6.2019 has been issued midway, it cannot, in any manner, affect their rights, inasmuch as, the Government themselves have clarified that it will have prospective effect from 6.6.2019. Per contra, the contention of the PSC and the candidates supporting OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..85..

their case is that, the reasonings in the above cited verdicts of the Tribunal and the Division Bench of this Court would apply in the instant case as well, and further that the manifestation of the clear intention and objective of the Government, as disclosed from Anx.A-4 G.O.(MS) No. 195/1996/G.Edn. dated 2.7.1996, and more crucially from Anx. A-5 G.O.(MS) No.227/2009/G.Edn. dated 25.11.2009, would make it clear that the candidate concerned should have studied B.Sc. degree with Physics/Chemistry as the main subject, and should also necessarily have studied Chemistry/Physics as a subsidiary subject thereto, at the B.Sc.

degree level, apart from B.Ed. in Physical Science, in order to be qualified for appointment as HSA (Physical Science). It is urged by them that there is no dispute that the subject concerned in the present case is Physical Science, and that a person appointed as HSA (Physical Science) will have to teach both Physics and Chemistry subjects to high school students and therefore, a fundamental acquisition of knowledge in Physics and Chemistry at the B.Sc. degree level would be highly imperative, as otherwise, such candidates will not be able to effectively handle classes in both Physics and Chemistry subjects at the high school level. It is OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..86..

pointed out that there is no dispute that there is no Degree in Physical Science and therefore, the above said stipulation is borne out from the norms and objects made out by the Government in Anxs. A-4, A-5 etc. That the core of the reasonings made by the Tribunal, more particularly, by the Division Bench of this Court in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [2013 (3) KLT 53], on the basis of Anxs. A-4 & A-5 GOs, would apply with greater vigour, in the instant case, inasmuch as the norm at Anx. A-5 dated 25.11.2009 was in existence long prior to the issuance of the instant Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016. In that regard, it is pertinently argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC that the core issue is as to what exactly are the stipulations regarding the B.Sc. qualification, as on the date of issuance of Anx.

A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016, and the last date of submission of application thereto on 5.10.2016, and the said issue is fully in favour of the stand of the PSC, in view of the abovesaid aspects, etc. Further, another equally important facet of the issue is as to whether the norm at Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 is only clarificatory or declaratory of the pre-existing state of affairs or whether it is prospective, etc. That, if the norm at Anx. A-137 G.O. OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..87..

dated 6.6.2019 only clarifies and declares the pre-existing state of affairs, regarding the nature of the B.Sc. degree qualification, then, there cannot be any dispute that Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 will relate back to the present selection process also. Further, only if this Court holds that Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 is a new norm and therefore substantially or significantly alters the pre-existing state of affairs, as on the date of issuance of Anx. A-1 notification dated 30.8.2016, then alone can it be held that Anx. A-

137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 will have prospective effect from 6.6.2019 onwards, etc. In that regard, it is urged, on behalf of the PSC that, Anx. A-137 norm is only declaratory or clarificatory on the pre-

existing state of affairs and therefore, the stand taken by the Government, as per Anx. A-139 dated 26.6.2019, that the so-called prospectivity of Anx. A-137 G.O. is only to be ignored, as it does not have any legal validity. In that regard, it is urged that, if Anx. A-137 G.O. is held to be declaratory or clarificatory of the pre-existing state of affairs, then it is incompetent for the Government to give a version, as per Anx. A-139 dated 26.6.2019, that Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 can have only prospective effect. Certain other contentions have also been urged by the parties concerned, about OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..88..

which reference will be made in the subsequent part of the judgment.

15. Resolution of issues : At the outset we have no hesitation to hold that, there cannot be any dispute with the proposition argued by the applicants who have succeeded before the Tribunal that, when a selection notification is issued by a selection authority, inviting applications for the post, then the selection should be in accordance with the existing rules/Government Orders and ordinarily, a candidate, who so applies and undergoes selection process, may acquire a limited vested right for being considered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the selection notification. So also, it has been held consistently by the Courts that the terms and conditions of selection processes cannot be altered midway, and if there are subsequent changes in qualification or criteria, after the issuance of the selection notification, but before the completion of the selection process, and if the employer seeks to adopt the change, then it is incumbent to issue a corrigendum notification, incorporating the change to the original notification, etc. (See N.T.Bevin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..89..

Commission & Ors. [AIR 1990 SC 1233], A.A.Calton v.

Director of Education [(1998) 3 SCC 33], P.Mahendran & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [AIR 1990 SC 405], Zonal Manager, Bank of India & Ors. v. Aarya K.Babu [(2019) 8 SCC 587]). However, there is a significant caveat to this aspect of the matter. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case in M0hanan v. Director of Homeopathy [2006 (3) KLT 641 (FB)], after exhaustive consideration of the various case laws enunciated by the Apex Court, held that merely because a person's name is included in the select list, he/she does not automatically get any vested right for appointment and the only limited right he/she gets is a right to be considered for appointment, in any vacancy that may arise. But that, the said proposition would apply with equal force to a select list, actually in force at a time when the amendment occurs, and thereby, in such cases also, if the vacancy arises, subsequent to such amendment, it can be filled up only in accordance with the amended recruitment rules, notwithstanding the currency of the select list. It has been held therein that the case laws recognize a right in those persons, who have applied pursuant to the selection process was initiated, prior to the coming into force OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..90..

of the rules of recruitment, for being considered for selection, in accordance with the rules in vigour at that time. But, by the same point, an equally enforceable right has to be recognized in those persons, who possess the new/amended qualifications as per the amended rules, to get appointments made in accordance with the new/amended rules, in which they can also compete, if vacancies have arisen subsequent to the coming into force of the new/amended rules. Further that, failure to conceive such a right would amount to violation of Fundamental Rights of those who have new/amended qualifications in terms of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Full Bench has held that both these rights should mutually coexist and the position that the Government is empowered to amend the recruitment rules, even retrospectively, is admissible. It must also not be forgotten that, after the amended rules have come into force, if appointments are allowed to be made from the list prepared from the unamended rules, notwithstanding the amendment, that would amount to postponing the date of commencement of the amended process, etc. Hence, it is has been held by the Full Bench that, once an amendment regarding qualification, method of appointment etc., OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..91..

in respect of a particular post, comes into force, any vacancy which arises, subsequent to the commencement of amended rules, can be filled up only in accordance with the amended rules, notwithstanding the currency of any select list published by the selection agency, like the Service Commission, which was prepared on the basis of the unamended rules. The Full Bench, in that decision, held that the vacancy which has arisen subsequent to the amendment of the rules on 12.4.1999 can be filled up only in accordance with the special rules made effective from that day. So also, there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition argued by the applicants, who had succeeded before the Tribunal, that the selection authority/PSC has no power to prescribe qualifications for the post in question, as it is in the exclusive domain of the State Government/appointing authority concerned. (See Public Service Commission v. Abdul Rasheed [2007 (3) KLT 881], Sathyadevan & Ors. v. Public Service Commission & Ors. [ILR 2007(4) KER 845], Nagaland Public Service Commission v. State of Nagaland & Ors. [(2017) 13 scc 498] etc.)

16. By the same coin it is also to be stated that, it is OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..92..

elementary and well established that, a selection authority like the PSC has the duty, coupled with the power conferred on them, to ascertain and ensure that the candidates, included in the eligible field of choice, possess the prescribed qualifications for the post, as per the norms in question, and the provision, as per Rule 11(i) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, is an adumbration of that aspect of the matter. Some of the case laws in that regard have already been discussed herein above.

17. In the instant case, the substantial and material issue considered in these cases is as to whether the Government norms, which were in vogue as on the date of issuance of Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016, insists that the candidates concerned should possess B.Sc. Degree in Physics/Chemistry, as the case may be, as the main subject, along with Chemistry/Physics as a subsidiary subject, apart from B.Ed. in Physical Science, in order to be considered for appointment as HSA (Physical Science) in Government Schools.

18. Equally, the other substantial facet of the issue is as to whether the stipulations in Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 are only declaratory and clarificatory of the pre-existing state of affairs, OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..93..

as it stood as on the date of issuance of Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016 or the period prior thereto, or whether the said G.O. dated 6.6.2019 stipulate new norms which substantially and significantly differ from the previous norms of qualifications and would only be prospective from 6.6.2019 onwards. Hence, we proceed to consider these vital and material issues in these matters hereunder.

(i) Do the norms of the Government issued, as it existed as on the date of issuance of Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016, stipulate that the candidate concerned should have B.Sc. Degree with Physics/Chemistry, as the case may be, as the main subject along with Chemistry/Physics, as the case may be, as a subsidiary subject, apart from B.Ed. in Physical Science, in order to be qualified for appointment as HSA (Physical Science) in Government Schools ?

18.i.1) As can be seen from the scheme of the norms issued by the Government, teaching posts are assigned in government schools on the basis of core subjects and language subjects. The core subjects, mentioned in OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..94..

Anx. A-3 G.O. dated 13.9.1988, are Mathematics, Physical Science, Natural Science, Social Studies. The appointment in question is to the post of HSA (Physical Science). The core subject involved in the present case is Physical Science. Hence, the norms at Anx. A-2, stipulate that the degree in the concerned subject (sic -

subject concerned) as well as B.Ed./B.T./L.T. conferred or recognized by the Universities in the State of Kerala, is mandatory in order to be appointed as HSA in the subject concerned. Since the subject concerned is Physical Science, the person concerned should have B.Sc. Degree in the subject concerned, which is Physical Science, apart from B.Ed. in Physical Science.

There is no dispute about the possession of B.Ed. in Physical Science in these cases. So also, it is common ground that there is no B.Sc. Degree offered in any of the Universities in the State of Kerala in the subject called Physical Science. It is common ground that a person, who is appointed as HSA (Physical Science) in a Government school, will have to necessarily teach OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..95..

both Physics and Chemistry subjects to the students of the high school section.

18.i.2) So, the core of the issue is as to the nature of the B.Sc. Degree that is acceptable for the present prescribed qualifications. The actual state of academic affairs, as far as B.Sc. Degree courses offered in the State of Kerala since 1980s, have been dealt with in para 11 of the decision of the Division Bench in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [2013 (3) KLT 53 (DB)], that there cannot be any difficulty to take judicial notice of the said state of affairs. The said state of affairs was that, though the norms in the 1980s were issued at a time when the Universities in the State of Kerala were offering B.Sc. Degree courses with one main subject and two subsidiary subjects, and a student who takes Chemistry as the main subject would take Physics and Mathematics as subsidiary subjects. It was only later that new subjects like Electronics were brought in. So also, at that time, when Physics was opted as the main subject, Chemistry and Mathematics OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..96..

were to be the subsidiary subjects. So, at that time, there was not much controversy regarding the qualifications for the post of HSA (Physical Science) in Government Schools, inasmuch as, invariably, the candidates would have secured B.Sc Degree with Physics/Chemistry, as the case may be, as the main subject, with Chemistry/Physics as subsidiary subjects.

A significant change was brought by G.O.(MS) No. 141/1988 dated 13.9.1988, issued by the State (Anx. A-3 herein), wherein it was stipulated in Clause 1

(b) thereof that, for the post of HSA (Physical Science), the acceptable academic qualifications at the B.Sc Degree level were not only Physics/Chemistry as the main subject but also Home Science as a main subject.

Later, Anx. A-4 G.O. dated 2.7.1996 was issued, whereby it was ordered by the Government that candidates who have B.Sc Degree with Geology as the main subject, but with both Chemistry/Physics as subsidiary subjects and B.Ed. in Physical Science could be treated as one of the alternate qualifications for OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..97..

appointment to the post of HSA (Physical Science) in Government Schools. Later, as noted above, the significant change made as per G.O. dated 13.9.1988 was that B.Sc Degree with Home Science as the main subject was made an acceptable qualification, and the subsidiary subjects offered for Home Science main were Zoology/Botany and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects. So, a student who takes B.Sc Degree in Home Science as the main subject would have studied chemistry as a subsidiary subject, but would not have studied Physics, even as a subsidiary subject. The Government had then ordered, as per Anx. A-4 G.O. dated 2.7.1996 that, where the main subject at the B.SC level is one other than Physics/Chemistry, like Geology main, then the candidate concerned should have necessarily studied both Physics/Chemistry as the subsidiary subjects in B.Sc. Geology main course. The dilution that was made in Anx. A-3 G.O. Dated 13.9.1988, in accepting B.Sc. Degree in Home Science as a main subject, with the result that the candidate OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..98..

concerned would not have studied the vital subject of Physics even as a subsidiary subject, was significantly altered and the objective of the norms that existed prior to 13.9.1988 was restored to a significant level by the issuance of Anx. A-4 G.O. dated 2.7.1996 in Government schools. Insisting that the case be covered by Anx. A-4, the student should have necessarily studied both Physics and Chemistry, at least as subsidiary subjects. This significant alteration was substantially and dominantly again improved by the issuance of Anx. A-5 G.O. dated 25.11.2009.

18.i.3) By that time, the Government had realized that if a candidate had a B.Sc. Degree, wherein he has studied only one of the subjects among Physics and Chemistry and has not studied both Physics and Chemistry at the B.Sc. Degree level, either as a main subject or as subsidiary subjects, they will not be able to handle classes or teach effectively the subjects of Physics and Chemistry at the high school level. To effectuate the said policy, objective and intention, the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..99..

Government issued Anx. A-5 G.O. dated 25.11.2009, whereby the adoption of B.Sc. degree, with Home Science as the main subject, was deleted from the norms made effective from 25.11.2009. Since, much emphasis has been given by both the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in Swapna Sukumar's case supra on the above said G.O. dated 25.11.2009, as can be seen from a reading of para 6 of the Apex Court's judgment and para 6 of the Division Bench's Judgment, both in Swapna Sukumar's case supra, it will be profitable to refer to the contents of G.O.(MS) No. 227/2009/G.Edn. dated 25.11.2009, which reads as follows:

"GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abstract GENERAL EDUCATION - QUALIFICATION FOR THE POST OF H.S.A. (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) - MODIFIED - ORDERS ISSUED ================================================= GENERAL EDUCATION (J) DEPARTMENT G.O.(Ms.) No. 227/2009/G Edn. Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 25th November, 2009 ================================================= Read:- G O. (Ms.) No. 141/88/G Edn. Dated 13-9-1988.

ORDER As per the Government Order read above, it was interalia ordered that, Graduation in Physics or Chemistry or Home Science as main subject will be the academic qualification for the post of High School Assistant (Physical Science).

2. Physics is one of the basic subjects of Engineering and Technology. For teaching Physics in High School Classes, a OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..100..

thorough knowledge of the subjects Physics and Mathematics is absolutely essential. For B.Sc. Home Science (main), Zoology/Botany and Chemistry are the subsidiaries. Therefore teaching of Physics in High School classes by a teacher with B.Sc. Home Science (main), who has not studied Physics at graduate level is not desirable. It will adversely affect the quality of teaching Physics in High School classes.

3. In the above circumstances, Government have examined the matter in detail and have decided to delete Degree in Home Science as main subject for graduation as the qualification for the Post of HSA (Physical Science) specified in the Government Order read above.

4. The Government Order read above stands modified to the above extent.

By order of the Governor, ELSAMMA PHILIP, Additional Secretary"

18.i.4) After hearing both sides, we are of the view that, but for the observations in para 10 of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [2013 (3) KLT 53], the reasonings given by the Division Bench in paras 11 & 12 thereof would be broadly acceptable in a case where the selection notification is issued by the PSC after the issuance of Anx. A-5 G.O. dated 25.11.2009. With that rider as above, the reasoning of the Division Bench, adumbrated in paras 11 & 12, could be treated as acceptable in a case like the instant one, where the selection notification has been issued after Anx. A-5. OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..101..

G.O. dated 25.11.2009. As regards paras 9 & 10 of Swapna Sukumar's case supra [2013 (3) KLT 53], there is strong force in the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the contesting respondents in O.P.(KAT) No. 261/2021 (applicants in O.A. (Ekm) No. 1042/2019), that the reasonings given by the Tribunal in the verdict rendered on 19.6.2012 in O.A. No. 370/2012 (Anx.

A-143 herein) cannot be treated as a binding precedent, inasmuch as the reasonings given by the Tribunal therein have been completely changed by the Division Bench in Anx. A-144 judgment dated 16.10.2012 in O.P.(KAT) No. 3407/2012, which arose out of O.A. No. 370/2012 (Anx. A-143 herein), wherein the Division Bench has confirmed the conclusions of the Tribunal, but on the basis of entirely different reasonings.

18.i.5) The reasoning given by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 370/2012 (Anx. A-143 herein) was regarding the aspect that the Physical Science teacher has to necessarily teach both Physics and Chemistry at the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..102..

high school classes, and that the subject concerned is Physical Science and that, as there is no B.Sc. Degree in Physical Science, the candidate concerned should have acquired Physical Science, in which both Physics and Chemistry have been studied appropriately, etc. Whereas, in the light of these reasons, the Tribunal had dismissed the O.A filed by the applicant therein and when the matter was taken up for challenge by the Division Bench, it resulted in Anx. A-144 judgment in OP(KAT) No. 3407/2012, whereby the conclusions of the Tribunal in dismissing O.A. No. 370/2012 have been concurred with, but by giving entirely different reasonings, stating that, on the facts of the case, the applicant therein had B.Sc. Degree in Polymer Chemistry and B.Ed. in Physical Science, and that the Government of the competent authority has not taken the decision to accept the B.Sc. Degree in Polymer Chemistry as equivalent to the B.Sc. Degree in Chemistry and therefore, in view of the legal position settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Suma v. OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..103..

Kerala Public Service Commission [2011 (1) KLT 1 (FB)], the applicant therein cannot be said to be qualified for the selection post in question.

18.i.6) We are in concurrence with the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the above said applicants, on the basis of the decisions as in S. Shanmughavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. [(2002) 8 SCC 361] and Mathai & Ors. v. Thomas & Ors. [2017 (2) KHC 594 (DB)].

By placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Shanmughavel Nadar's case supra, the Division Bench of this Court, in Mathai's case supra, has held that on confirmation, reversal or modification of the judgment to the lower forum by a superior forum, the operative part, i.e. the mandate or decree merges, and when the superior forum confirms the judgment, for different reasons than the one assigned by the lower forum, what emerges is the operative part of the order and not the reasoning of the subordinate forum. Hence, reliance placed by the Division Bench of this Court in OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..104..

paras 9 & 10 of the decision in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [2013 (3) KLT 53], on the verdict of the Tribunal rendered in O.A. No. 370/2012, may not be tenable in view of this technical aspect. But, it has to be borne in mind that the issue considered by the Tribunal in Swapna Sukumar's case supra (Judgment dated 9.4.2013 rendered by the Tribunal in O.A.No.368/2013) was a similar issue as in this case, inasmuch as the applicant therein has cleared B.Sc. Degree with Chemistry, Microbiology, Botany (triple main), apart from B.Ed.

and the candidate could not study Physics at the main level or subsidiary level. A reading of para 4 of the verdict of the Tribunal, rendered on 9.4.2013 in O.A. No. 368/2013, would indicate that the Tribunal has placed serious reliance on the view amplified by the Government as disclosed from the above said G.O.(MS) No. 227/2009/G.Edn. dated 25.11.2009. So also, the Tribunal, while rendering the verdict in O.A. No. 368/2013, has also placed reliance on the previous verdicts of the Tribunal rendered on 8.6.2012 in O.A. OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..105..

No. 243/2012 as well as the one rendered on 19.6.2012 in O.A. No. 370/2012, as can be seen from a reading of para 8 of the verdict in O.A. No. 368/2013. The Division Bench of this Court in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [2013 (3) KLT 53] has mainly given the reasons for arriving at the conclusion therein, based on the said G.O. dated 25.11.2009, as can be seen from a reading of paras 6 & 11 thereof.

18.i.7) A reading of the decision of the Apex Court in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [(2015) 11 SCC 307] would clearly indicate that their Lordships of the Apex Court has also referred to the contents of the above said G.O. dated 25.11.2009, as can be seen from a reading of para 6 thereof. However, the crucial aspect of the matter was that the selection notification in that case was issued at a time much before the issuance of the G.O. dated 25.11.2009. As a matter of fact, the terms and conditions of the said selection notification dated 30.4.2008 is referred to in para 2 of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Divya's case OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..106..

supra [2016 (4) KHC 321 (DB)], and it can be seen that Note (3) of the said selection notification dated 30.4.2008 clearly provided that the applicant should have taken Physics/Chemistry/Home Science as the main subject for graduation. Thus, the said selection notification dated 30.4.2008 was issued based on the then existing norms as per G.O.(MS) No. 141/1988/G.Edn. dated 13.9.1988 (Anx. A-3 herein), wherein B.Sc. Home Science as the main subject was also an acceptable qualification. It is much after the issuance of the said selection notification dated 30.4.2008 and the last date of submission of application thereof that the Government amended the norms, as per G.O. dated 25.11.2009, whereby B.Sc.

Home Science as the main subject was deleted from the norms.

18.i.8) The Apex Court, after referring to the contents of the G.O. dated 25.11.2009, as per para 6 of Swapna Sukumar's case supra [(2015) 11 SCC 307], has further held in para 8 thereof that the said OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..107..

selection notification in that case was issued on the date at a prior point of time, and therefore, going by the rules, which prevailed as on the issuance of notification calling for applications, the claimants therein were duly qualified to hold the post, etc.

18.i.9) After considering the rival pleas, and after going through the various judgments cited before us on this aspect, we are inclined to take the view that the impugned rejection order of the PSC was interdicted by the Apex Court in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [(2015) 11 SCC 307], as the selection notification was issued on the date prior to the issuance of G.O. dated 25.11.2009, and as the said G.O. was in divergence with the then existing qualifications stipulated in the selection notification dated 30.4.2008, the said G.O. dated 25.11.2009 would only have prospective effect and could not have detrimentally affected the selection process, which was notified on 30.4.2008.

18.i.10) We are also inclined to take the view that presumably, on account of these aspects, the Apex OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..108..

Court has very guardedly and consciously observed in paras 10 & 13 of Swapna Sukumar's case supra [(2015) 11 SCC 307] that the said findings and directions of the Apex Court shall not be a precedent in future selections or future recruitments. The details of the dismissal of the subsequent IAs filed before the Apex Court for getting the very same benefits given to the successful parties therein are dealt with in para 11 of Divya's case supra [2016 (4) KHC 321 (DB)].

Even independently of the decision of the Apex Court in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [(2015) 11 SCC 307] and that of the Division Bench in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [2013 (3) KLT 53], we are of the firm view that a substantial paradigm shift has occurred in the norms of qualifications, after the issuance of the G.O. dated 25.11.2009.

18.i.11) We have already noted that a significant dilution was made in the qualification by the issuance of Anx. A-3 G.O.(MS) No. 141/1988/G.Edn. dated 13.9.1988, by accepting B.Sc. Home Science as an OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..109..

acceptable qualification. A significant improvement was made by the Government in its policy objective, by the issuance of Anx. A-4 G.O.(MS) No. 195/1996/G.Edn. dated 2.7.1996, which insisted that, where the candidate concerned has secured B.Sc.

Degree in a subject other than Physics or Chemistry, like Geology, as the main subject, then the candidate should necessarily have studied both Physics and Chemistry at least as subsidiary subjects. This significant alteration, made by the Government as per Anx. A-4 G.O. dated 2.7.1996, was thereafter substantially improvised by the issuance of Anx. A-5 G.O. dated 25.11.2009. Hence, we are of the view that, on or with effect from Anx. A-5 G.O. dated 25.11.2009, a paradigm shift in the alteration of the qualification has occurred, and the major intention of the Government is that the candidate concerned should have studied both Physics and Chemistry at the B.Sc.

Degree level, either as main or subsidiary subjects, in order to be qualified for appointment as HSA OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..110..

(Physical Science) in the Government Schools concerned. The rationale of the Government in the significant alteration as per Anx. A-4 G.O. and the later substantial alteration as per Anx. A-5 G.O. is after taking into account the crucial factual scenario that there is no B.Sc. Degree in Physical Science offered by any University in the State of Kerala, and the core subject is Physical Science, and the teacher appointed as HSA (Physical Science) will have to teach both Physics and Chemistry subjects to the high school students. Further, it is well known that Physics and Chemistry are core subjects and the basic and fundamental learning in those subjects are vital for proper education at the high school level. Hence, we are of the considered view that, on and with effect from the issuance of Anx. A-5 G.O. dated 25.11.2009, the candidate concerned should have B.Sc. Degree in Physics or Chemistry, as the case may be, as the main subject, along with Chemistry or Physics as the subsidiary subject thereto, subject to any other norms OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..111..

in the case of B.Sc. Geology (Main), wherein the Government has already ordered that, in such a case, the candidate should have studied both Physics and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects, etc.

18.i.12) An argument was urged strongly by Dr. K. P. Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the successful applicants that, as per Governmental norms and University norms, a candidate, having B.Sc. Degree with either Physics or Chemistry as the main subject, irrespective as to the subsidiary subjects, is eligible to secure admission for B.Ed. in Physical Science, in the courses offered in the Universities of Kerala, and further that, he had also relied on materials to show that the disciplines of Physics and Chemistry were also taught in the B.Ed.

training course in Physical Science, and that therefore candidates who have secured only B.Sc. Physics or Chemistry as the main subject, but without Chemistry or Physics, as the case may be, as subsidiary subjects, can easily cope up with teaching Physics and Chemistry OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..112..

at the high school section, etc.

18.i.13) Whereas, Smt. Molty Majeed, learned counsel appearing for the rival parties, has also relied on certain materials regarding the university curriculum to show that, what is offered at the B.Ed.

Degree course level in Physical Science is the pedagogy courses, regarding the teaching methodology in Physics and Chemistry subjects and hence, it is urged by her that exposure to Physics and Chemistry, as part of the teaching methodology, syllabus in B.Ed. Training courses cannot be equated to the fundamental and basic acquisition of learning in the core subjects of Physics and Chemistry at the B.Sc. Degree level. The argument advanced by Dr. K. P. Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel, is essentially in the field of academic policy matters, but prima facie, since it is not seriously disputed before us that what is taught in the B.Ed. level in Physical Science is the teaching methodology in Physics and Chemistry subjects etc., the same cannot be equated to the basic learning process at the B.Sc. OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..113..

Degree level, in the basic and fundamental science subjects like Physics and Chemistry. Hence, we are not in a position to countenance the above said plea of Dr. K. P. Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel.

18.i.14) Purposive and contextual interpretative perspectives: In this background, it will also be pertinent to note that the relevance and necessity for adherence to contextual and purposive interpretation of laws in appropriate cases have been underscored by the Apex Court and various High Courts, including this Court, in a catena of decisions as in Vanguard Fire & General Insurance v. Fraser & Ross , reported in AIR 1960 SC 971, National Building Construction Corporation v. Pritam Singh , reported in AIR 1972 SC 1579, Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd., reported in (1987) 1 SCC 424, K.V.Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 53, Paul Enterprise v.

Rajib Chatterjee & Co., reported in (2009) 3 SCC OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..114..

709, National Insurance Company v. Kirpal Singh, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 189, etc.

18.i.15) It would also be pertinent to refer to the canons of interpretative construction, based on the principle of purposive interpretation or purposive construction. In that regard, it will be relevant to refer to the views of Justice Aharon Barak, the eminent jurist and former President of the Supreme Court of Israel, who, in his illuminating treatise "Purposive Interpretation in Law", has opined as follows:-

"Purposive interpretation is based on three components: language, purpose, and discretion. Language shapes the range of semantic possibilities within which the interpreter acts as a linguist. Once the interpreter defines the range, he or she chooses the legal meaning of the text from among the (express or implied) semantic possibilities. The semantic component thus sets the limits of interpretation by restricting the interpreter to a legal meaning that the text can bear in its (public or private) language."

18.i.16) In the aforecited decision in Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. [(1987) 1 SCC 424], the Apex Court has categorically held in para 33 thereof that interpretation must depend on the text and the context, and that they are the bases of interpretation. OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..115..

If the text is the texture, then the context is what gives the colour, and neither can be ignored and both are important, etc. It will be pertinent to refer to para 33 of the decision in Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd.

[(1987) 1 SCC 424], which reads as follows:-

"33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. It is by looking at the definition as a whole in the setting of the entire Act and by reference to what preceded the enactment and the reasonsfor it that the Court construed the expression "Prize Chit" in Srinivasa [(1980) 4 SCC 507 : (1981) 1 SCR 801 : 51 Com Cas 464] and we find no reason to depart from the Court's construction. "

18.i.17) As held by the Apex Court in the decision in Shailesh Dhairyaman v. Mohan Balakrishna OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..116..

Lulla [(2016) 3 SCC 619] para 31, at page 641, the principle of "purposive interpretation" or "purposive construction" is based on the understanding that the court is supposed to attach that meaning to the provisions which serve the "purpose" behind such a provision and the basic approach is to ascertain what is it designed to accomplish? And to put it otherwise by interpretative process the court is supposed to realise the goal that the legal text is designed to realise, etc.

18.i.18) The legal principles in this regard have been delineated in the decisions of this Court as in Pushpaja M. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

[2019 (1) KHC 10 = ILR 2019 (1) Ker. 340] at paras 14 to 16 thereof. The Full Bench of this Court, in a recent decision, rendered on 7.4.2022, in the case in Shanmukha Sundaram Pillai S. v. Meenachil Rubber Marketing & Processing Co-operative Society Ltd. No.K 118 and Others [2022 (3) KHC 121 (FB)] has also dealt with these aspects and has also placed reliance on the aforementioned decision of OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..117..

the Apex Court in Reserve Bank of India v.

Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. [(1987) 1 SCC 424] and various other decisions as in Poppatlas Shah v. State of Madras [AIR 1953 SC 274], Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v. Ramjee [(1997) 2 SCC 256].

18.i.19) In that regard, it may not be out of place to note that the Apex Court in the aforecited case in Ramjee's case supra [(1997) 2 SCC 256] has held that "to be literal in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul....". The main issue as to the nature of the BSC degree qualifications, required for appointment to the post of HSA (Physical Science), has to be decided in the light of these interpretative norms. There is no dispute to the following aspects, namely, that the core subject concerned in this case is Physical Science at the high school level and the post in question is High School Assistant in the subject concerned (HSA (Physical Science)). So also, the B.Sc. degree OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..118..

qualification required is B.Sc. degree in the subject concerned, which should then be B.Sc. Physical Science. There is no B.Sc. degree in Physical Science offered by the universities concerned. Further, the crucial aspect is that HSA (Physical Science) is invested with the heavy duty and responsibility to teach both Physics and Chemistry subjects at the high school level.

After the dilution of the qualifications, by permitting even B.Sc. Degree holders in Home Science as the main subject, wherein the students do not have to study Physics even as a subsidiary subject, but only Chemistry and other subjects as per Anx. A-3 G.O. dated 13.9.1988, a significant contra manifestation of the intention of the Government is evident from Anx.

A-4 G.O. dated 2.7.1996, the details of which have already been stated herein above. The core of the matter in that regard, that flows from Anx. A-4 G.O., is that the Government has significantly insisted on the requirement to have studied both Physics and Chemistry, at least as subsidiary subjects, where the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..119..

main subjects in the B.Sc. degree level are other subjects like Geology. However, the predominant intention of the Government is further manifested in Anx. A-5 G.O. dated 25.11.2009, where the earlier dilution by the adoption of the B.Sc. Degree in the main subject has been totally eliminated, and the Government has clearly indicated about the imperativeness to study the subject concerned, namely, Physics and Chemistry at that level. This aspect of the matter is also clearly evident from the reasonings of the Apex Court in Swapna Sukumar's case supra [(2015) 11 SCC 307]. The pre-existing state of affairs that existed, long prior to the issuance of the instant Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016, is clearly adumbrated and delineated in Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019. The factual details with regard to Anx.

A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 have already been covered in the earlier part of the judgment. So, the aforementioned legal principles, relating to purposive and contextual interpretative approach, would lead to OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..120..

the conclusion that, based on the predominant manifestation of the intention of the Government, as per Anx. A-5 G.O. dated 25.11.2009, the B.Sc. Degree qualification required for appointment as HSA (Physical Science) in Government Schools should be necessarily both Physics and Chemistry at the B.Sc.

Degree level as a main or subsidiary subject, as the case may be, at least with effect from the date of issuance of that G.O., namely 25.11.2009. This conclusion is all the more justified in terms of the explication of the stand of the Government regarding the pre-existing state of affairs, as manifested in Anx. A-137 G.O.

18.i.20) As held by the Apex Court in Ramjee's case supra [(1997) 2 SCC 256], "....to be literal in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul". Equally, we have to bear in mind the approach made by the Apex Court in the decisions as in Peerless General Finance's case supra [(1987) 1 SCC 424], that the interpretation was dependent on the text and the context, and that if the text is the texture then the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..121..

context is what gives the colour, and neihter can be ignored and both are important. So also, as held by the Apex Court in Shailesh Dhairyaman's case supra [(2016) 3 SCC 619], the principles of "purposive interpretation" or "purposive construction" is based on the understanding that the Court is supposed to attach that meaning to the provisions which subserve the 'purpose' behind such a provision, and the basic approach should be as to what purpose the norm has been decided to accomplish, and the interpretative process of the Court is to realize the goal that the legal text is designed to realize. Applying these basic norms in purposive and contextual interpretation, the only conclusion that can be reached is that, at least on or w.e.f 25.11.2009, both the subjects namely, Physics and Chemistry should be acquired at the B.Sc. Degree level, either as the main or subsidiary subject, as the case may be, and subject to the other norms of the Government, etc.

18.i.21) In understanding the purpose of the norm, OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..122..

we have to clearly keep in mind that the purpose should be the one to effectively subserve the needs and requirements of the students, who are beneficiaries of the teaching process. The students are to be taught both Physics and Chemistry at the high school level. The purpose behind the norm is not to be dominantly understood in the context of the problems and issues of teachers. It is well known that Physics and Chemistry are the building blocks of the basic and fundamental sciences, and the State authorities have a duty to ensure that students are taught the subjects of Physics and Chemistry at the high school level by teachers who are competent and exposed to both the subjects at the academic qualification level, namely B.Sc. Degree level, and not merely as per the teachers training qualification level, namely B.Ed. At the B.Ed. level, the emphasis is on imparting teaching methodological and pedagogical skills in such teachers. True, that the candidates may have studied B.Ed. in Phsyical Science, but that cannot OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..123..

be substituted to the requirement of learning the basic subjects of Physics and Chemistry at the minimum academic qualification level, which is B.Sc. Degree in this case. Hence, going by the context and purpose for which the norms have been designed, the conclusion is inevitable, inasmuch as the candidates should have studied both Physics and Chemistry at the B.Sc. Degree level as above.

18.i.22) The upshot of the above discussion is that, in view of the stipulation as above, on and w.e.f.

25.11.2009, the impugned stand of the PSC is tenable and sustainable. There was no alteration in the qualifications thereafter, as on the date of issuance of Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016. Hence, we would resultantly also hold that, as on the date of issuance of Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016, as well as on the last date of submission of applications thereof (i.e. 5.10.2016), the candidate concerned should have B.Sc. Degree in Physics and Chemistry as subjects, as mentioned supra. OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..124..

18.ii Are the norms referred to in Anx. A-137 G.O. (MS) No. 58/2019/G.Edn. dated 6.6.2019 clarificatory and declaratory in nature, regarding the pre-existing state of affairs or whether the said G.O. is prospective, etc.

18.ii.1) Before answering this issue, it would be pertinent to refer to some of the basic case laws laid down by the Apex Court regarding as to whether norms are only clarificatory or declaratory in nature, in regard to the pre-existing state of affairs, or whether it is a new norm having only prospective operation. In Zile Singh v. State of Haryana [AIR 2004 SC 5100 = (2004) 8 SCC 1], the Apex Court has held, in para 14 thereof that the presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes and in determining the nature of the law, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form, and the new Act is 'to explain' an earlier Act, and it could be without object, unless construed retrospectively, and an explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission and to OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..125..

clear the doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act, and it is well settled that if the statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law, retrospective operation is generally intended, and an amendment Act may be purely declaratory to clear the meaning of the principal Act, which is already implicit, and a clarificatory amendment in this nature will have retrospective effect. It will be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Zile Singh's case supra [AIR 2004 SC 5100] para 14 thereof, which reads as follows:

"14. The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes.... In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is "to explain" an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospectively. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law, retrospective operation is generally intended.... An amending Act may be purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect. "

18.ii.2) A Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. [(2008) 9 SCC 622] has held in para 19 thereof that presumption against retrospective operation is OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..126..

not applicable to declaratory statutes, and that a declaratory act is to remove doubts existing as to the common law or the meaning or effect of any statute, and such Acts are usually held to be retrospective, and that an explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear doubts in the meaning of the previous Act, and that it is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous Act, retrospective operation is generally intended. It will be profitable to refer to para 19 of the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax's case supra [(2008) 9 SCC 622] which reads as follows:

"19. In Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 11th Edn., 2008, Justice G.P. Singh has stated the position regarding retrospective operation of statutes as follows:

"The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes. As stated in Craies and approved by the Supreme Court:'For modern purposes a declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective. The usual reason for passing a declaratory Act is to set aside what Parliament deems to have been a judicial error, whether in the statement of the common law or in the interpretation of statutes. Usually, if not invariably, such an Act contains a preamble, and also the word "declared" as well as the word "enacted".' But the use of the words 'it is declared' is not conclusive that the Act is declaratory for these words may, at times, be used to introduce new rules of law and the Act in the latter case will only be amending the law and will not necessarily be retrospective. In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is 'to explain' an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospective. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..127..

omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law, retrospective operation is generally intended. The language 'shall be deemed always to have meant' or 'shall be deemed never to have included' is declaratory, and is in plain terms retrospective. In the absence of clear words indicating that the amending Act is declaratory, it would not be so construed when the amended provision was clear and unambiguous. An amending Act may be purely clarificatory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect and, therefore, if the principal Act was existing law when the Constitution came into force, the amending Act also will be part of the existing law."

18.ii.3) The Apex Court has also held in cases, as in State of Bihar & Ors. v. Ramesh Prasad Verma [(2017) 5 SCC 665], the preposition is so well laid down that the legislation or instrument, having the force of law, if clarificatory, declaratory or explanatory in nature, and it makes a purport, in order to supply an obvious omission or to clear up the doubts qua any prior law, retrospective operation thereof is generally intended.

18.ii.4) The Division Bench of this Court has also considered the above said issue, regarding the distinction between clarificatory or declaratory norms vis-a-vis prospective norms in the decision in Arun v. Kerala Public Service OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..128..

Commission [2021 (4) KLT 787 (DB)]. The Division Bench of this Court in paras 22 & 23 of Arun's case supra, after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Prasad Verma's case supra [(2017) 5 SCC 665], has held that, where the subsequent order, which is clarificatory, declaratory or explanatory in nature, had purport, which is issued to supply the omission or to clear any doubts in any prior law, then the same would have retrospective effect from the date of the prior order, and that what is to be assessed is the nature and purport of the order in question, and in other words, where the nature and purport of the order or the essence and substance of the order is clarificatory or declaratory in nature, then certainly the same would have retrospective effect from the earlier order, which is sought to be clarified by a subsequent order. Where it is not clarificatory or declaratory, but is a new norm, making substantive departure from the earlier norm, and also significantly alters the earlier norm, then certainly, it is to be held that, in substance OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..129..

and essence, the new norm is substantively and significantly different from the earlier norm and that therefore, it cannot be held that the said new norm issued subsequently, will take effect from the date of issuance of the earlier norms, and then, in such a case, ordinarily, such a new norm can only have prospective effect.

18.ii.5) The Apex Court has considered the above issue regarding declaratory or clarificatory orders etc., in a decision involving selection processes of the PSC in the case in Praveen Kumar C.P. v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. [2021 SCC Online 612]. Therein, the Apex Court has also considered the impact of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in a decision as in Aarya K.Babu's case supra [(2019) 8 SCC 587], it will be pertinent to refer to paras 25 to 28 of the decision of the Apex Court in Praveen Kumar's case supra, which read as follows:

"25. So far as the present appeals are concerned, the facts are not identical or near similar also considering the factual background of the case of Aarya K. Babu (supra). In the two GOs which have been reproduced earlier, it has been specified that the respective B.Ed. degrees of the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..130..

appellants through regular study were equivalent to B.Ed. degree in Natural Science. In the case of PK, his B.Ed. Degree in Biological Science was recognized as equivalent to B.Ed. Natural Science Degree of Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. In the case of AD, the GO stipulated that Double Main B.Ed. (Biological Science Education and Physical Science Education) degree obtained by her through regular mode was recognized as equivalent to B.Ed. Natural Science Degree of University of Calicut. It is a fact that these orders came much after the employment notifications were issued. But what we have to address in these appeals is as to whether the respective B.Ed. degrees of the appellants declared as equivalent to those of the concerned subjects as notified would operate from the dates of issue of the respective GOs or the same would relate back to the time when they obtained the degrees or at least to the date of the employment notification. The appellants have relied on a decision of a coordinate Bench in the case of Beena R. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, [(2017) 15 SCC 306]. In that case, however, there was no dispute in the case of appellant that she possessed equivalent qualification of KGTE (English typewriting) but she did not have separate certificate as far as the computer wordprocessing was concerned. In this judgment, a coordinate Bench examined the implication of the expression "produced". This authority does not aid the appellants.

26. Note (v) of Clause 7 of the employment notification in the case PK and Note (vi) of Clause 7 of the employment notification in the case of AD required disclosure of the equivalency orders. A plain reading of the two GOs clearly reflect that their degrees were equivalent to the requisite qualifications contained in the eligibility criteria. In the case of Aarya K. Babu (supra), the disputed subject was recognized subsequently and introduced as part of the eligibility criteria. The principle of equivalency was not the main reasoning on the basis of which the said case was decided. The word "equivalence" in its plain meaning implies something which is equal to another. In the field of academics, application of the principle of equivalency in relation to degrees in two subjects would mean that they had the same standing or status all along, unless the official instrument according equivalency specifies a date from which the respective subjects would be treated as such, in express terms or by implication.

27. Whether a GO would have prospective effect or relate back to an earlier date is a question which would have to be decided on the basis of text and tenor of the respective orders. The GOs which declared appellants' OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..131..

degrees to be equivalent to those required as per the applicable notifications were not general orders but these two orders were person specific, relating to the two appellants. Once the GOs specifically declared that their B.Ed. degrees were equivalent to the designated subject which formed part of the employment notification, the GOs in substance have to be interpreted as clarificatory in nature and these cannot be construed to have had elevated the status or position of the degree they already had after the declaration was made in the GOs. The subject GOs only recognised an existing state of affairs so far as the nature of the degrees were concerned and did not create fresh value for the degrees which the appellants possessed. Though these equivalent orders were not in existence on the dates of issue of employment notifications, the GOs in substance recognize such status from the dates of obtaining such degrees. The GOs do not reveal any intervening circumstances which could be construed to imply that the respective degrees acquired the equivalent status because of such circumstances occurring subsequent to grant of their B.Ed. degrees. The aforesaid Notes to Clause 7 of the employment notifications postulated disclosure of the number and date of the orders on equivalence. But the GOs to which we have referred treat the equivalency to be operating on the dates of obtaining such degrees. Thus, the defect, if any, on disclosure requirement, shall stand cured on issue of the University orders followed by the GOs. The GOs also specify the context in which these were issued and refer to the appellants being included in the list of KPSC. This being the case, we do not think treating the appellants' degrees as equivalent to those required under the applicable notifications by the GOs issued in the year 2019 would result in change in the rules of the game midway. At best, it can be termed as interpreting the rules when the game was on, figuratively speaking. Such a course would, in our opinion, be permissible. For this reason, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the different authorities cited on the principle of "change in the rule of the game midway". We have opined that the appellants' degrees in B.Ed. were equivalent to those required by the employment notifications and the equivalency orders were merely clarificatory in nature. For this reason, we do not think there was any fundamental breach of Notes

(v) and (vi) of Clause 7 of the respective employment notifications in the cases of the appellants.

28. Once we hold so, we do not think relief can be denied to these two appellants on the ground that other similarly situated persons may not have had applied for the same posts and were being put to disadvantage. In the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..132..

case of Aarya K. Babu (supra), that course was adopted by a coordinate Bench as it was a new subject which was added to a subsisting range of subjects in the qualification criteria. The principle of service jurisprudence that a candidate must possess the requisite qualification for a post on the date of issue of employment notification cannot be applied in the appellants' cases, as in our view, they possessed equivalent qualifications when they applied for the posts. The GOs only confirmed the equivalency of their B.Ed. degrees. In our opinion, they shall be deemed to have had the equivalent qualification on the relevant date. As we have held that the respective GOs only clarified or confirmed an existing status of certain educational qualifications, in absence of specific instance of similarly situated but unspecified number of persons having not applied for the posts would be unfair to the ones who apply for the same and undergo three levels of litigations to establish that they had equivalent degrees."

18.11.6) Now, the above said issue has to be considered in the light of the legal position well settled as above.

It will be pertinent to refer to the decision of Anx.

A-137 G.O.(MS) No.58/2019/G.Edn. dated 6.6.2019 which reads as follows:

"കകേരള സർകക്കാർ സസംഗ്രഹസം പപക്കാവവിവ-എചച.എസച.ടവി (ഫവിസവികൽ സയൻസച ) തസസവികേയവികലേയയ്ക്കുള നവിയമനസം - കയക്കാഗഗ്യത - നവിശ്ചയവിചച ഉത്തരവച പപുറപചപപടപുവവിക്കുന. =================================================== പപക്കാതുവവിദഗ്യക്കാഭഗ്യക്കാസ (പജ) വകുപച സ.ഉ.(കകേ)നസം.58/2018/പപക്കാ.വവി.വ തതീയതവി,തവിരുവനന്തപപുരസം, 06/06/2019 =================================================== പരക്കാമർശസം:- 1 എസച.സവി.ഇ.ആർ.ടവി ഡയറകേക്ടറപുപട 11-6-2018 പലേ കപക്കാഗ്രക്കാസം 2/1647/18/എസച.സവി.ഇ.ആർ.ടവി നമ്പർ കേത്തച.

ഉത്തരവച എചച.എസച.ടവി (ഫവിസവികൽ സയൻസച) തസസവികേയപു പട കയക്കാഗഗ്യതയക്കായവി ബവിരുദ തലേത്തവിൽ മപുഖഗ്യവവിഷയമക്കായ ഫവിസവികേകച / പകേമവിസസവി എനവിവകയക്കാപടക്കാപസം സബകവിഡയറവി വവിഷയങ്ങളക്കായ സസക്കാറവിസസവികേകച. കേമ്പഗ്യമട്ടർ അപചലേവികകഷൻ, ഇലേകേചകകക്കാണവികേകച, മക്കാത്തമക്കാറവികേകച OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..133..

തുടങ്ങവിയ വവിഷയങ്ങൾ ഉൾപചപപപടയപു ള ബവിരുദകൂടവി പരവിഗണപമനച ആവശഗ്യപചപപട്ടച നവിരവധവി നവികവദനങ്ങൾ സർകക്കാരവിനച ലേഭവിക്കുകേയപു ണക്കായവി. സർകക്കാർ ഇകക്കാരഗ്യസം എസച.സവി.ഇ.ആർ.ടവി യപു മക്കായവി ബന്ധപചപപട്ടച വവിശദമക്കായവി പരവികശക്കാധവിചപു.

ഫവിസവികേകച, പകേമവിസസവി എനവിവയവികലേപതങവിലേപുസം ഒനച മപുഖഗ്യവവിഷയമക്കായപുസം അതവികലേപതങവിലേപുസം ഒനച സബകവിഡയറവിയക്കായപുസം ബവിരുദ കനടവിയവരക്കാണച. കകേരളത്തവിപലേ പപക്കാതുവവിദഗ്യക്കാലേയങ്ങളവിൽ എചച.എസച.ടവി ഫവിസവികൽ സയൻസച അദഗ്യക്കാപകേരക്കായവി നവിയമവിതരക്കാകുനതുസം കഹസസ്കൂൾ കേചലേക്കാസകസ്സുകേളവിൽ ഫവിസവികേകച, പകേമവിസസവി എനതീ വവിഷയങ്ങൾ പഠവിപവിക്കുനതുസം. എനക്കാൽ ബവിരുദതലേത്തവിൽ ഫവിസവികേകച, പകേമവിസസവി ഇവയവിൽ ഏപതങവിലേപുസം ഒനച പമയവിനക്കായപുസം എനക്കാൽ പകേമവിസസവി പമയവിനവികനക്കാപടക്കാപസം ഫവിസവികേചകസക്കാ ഫവിസവികേകച പമയവിനവികനക്കാപടക്കാപസം സബകവിഡയറവിയക്കായവി പകേമവിസസവികയക്കാ ഇലേചലേക്കാപത പകേരസം സസക്കാറവിസസവികേകച , കേമ്പഗ്യമട്ടർ സയൻസച, കേമ്പഗ്യമട്ടർ അപചലേവികകഷൻ, ഇലേകേചകകക്കാണവികേകച, മക്കാത്തമക്കാറവികേകച തുടങ്ങവിയ ഏപതങവിലേപുസം വവിഷയങ്ങകളക്കാപടയപു സം ബവിരുദസം കനടവിയവർകച കഹസസ്കൂൾ കേചലേക്കാസകസ്സുകേളവിപലേ ഫവിസവികേകച , പകേമവിസസവി എനതീ രണപു വവിഷയങ്ങളപുസം ഒകരസമയസം കഹസസ്കൂൾ കേചലേക്കാസകസ്സുകേളവിൽ പഠവിപവികക്കാൻ കേഴവിയക്കാത്ത സക്കാഹചരഗ്യമപുണക്കാകുനണച.

ഫവിസവികേകച/പകേമവിസസവി ബവിരുദതലേത്തവിൽ മപുഖഗ്യവവിഷയമക്കായപുസം അകതക്കാപടക്കാപസം പകേമവിസസവി/ഫവിസവികേകച സബകവിഡയറവിയക്കായപുസം പഠവിചവിട്ടവിലേചലേക്കാത്തവർകേച ആ വവിഷയങ്ങൾ രണപു സം കഹസസ്കൂൾ കേചലേക്കാസകസ്സുകേളവിൽ കേക്കാരഗ്യക്ഷമമക്കായവി പഠവിപവികക്കാനക്കാവവിലേചലേ.. ആയതവിനക്കാൽ ഫവിസവികേകച/പകേമവിസസവി മപുഖഗ്യവവിഷയമക്കായപുസം അകതക്കാപടക്കാപസം പകേമവിസസവി/ ഫവിസവികേകച സബകവിഡയറവിയക്കായപുസം ബവിരുദസം കനടവിയവപര മക്കാതസം എചച.എസച.ടവി (ഫവിസവികൽ സയൻസച) തസസവികേയവിൽ നവിയമവിചക്കാൽ മതവിപയനച ഇതവിനക്കാൽ ഉത്തരവക്കാകുന.

ഇതവിനകേസം നവിയമവിതരക്കായ സർകക്കാർ/എയയ്ഡഡച സസ്കൂളപുകേളവിപലേ അദഗ്യക്കാപകേർകച ഈ ഉത്തരവച ബക്കാധകേമക്കായവിരവികവിലേചലേ..

ഗവരചണരുപട ഉത്തരവവിനച പകേക്കാരസം എഛച.നജതീബച, കജക്കായവിനച പസക്രട്ടറവി "

18.ii.4) Anx. A-141 G.O. (MS) No. 128/2019/G.Edn.

dated 20.8.2019 was issued, taking note of the representations given by various candidates having B.Sc. Degree in Physics/Chemistry as the main subject, as the case may be, but having other subsidiary subjects like Statistics, Computer Applications, OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..134..

Mathematics, Electronics, etc., urging that their qualifications should also be treated as acceptable qualifications for appointment as HSA (Physical Science). In that process, the Government has secured the opinion of the SCERT, and a reading of para 2 of Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 would clearly indicate that the Government has taken cognizance of the actual state of affairs that the persons having Physics/Chemistry, as the case may be, as the main subject, along with Chemistry/Physics, as the case may be, as a subsidiary subject, are the personnels who are being appointed as HSA (Physical Science) in Government High Schools to teach Physics and Chemistry subjects. Further, it is also noted by the Government that, if at the B.Sc. Degree level, a candidate has Physics/Chemistry as the main subject, but a Chemistry (Main) Graduate does not study Physics as even a subsidiary subject thereto, or the Physics (Main) Graduate has not studied Chemistry as even a subsidiary subject, and has studied other OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..135..

subjects like Statistics, Computer Applications, Mathematics, Electronics, etc. as subsidiary subjects, then such persons will not be having efficiency in teaching Physics and Chemistry in High School classes.

It is after taking cognizance of the above said pre-

existing state of affairs that the Government has further ordered in para 3 of Anx. A-137 G.O. that if the candidates have B.Sc. Degree with Physics/Chemistry as the main subject, but have not studied Chemistry/Physics as a subsidiary subject thereto, then they will not be able to properly teach Physics/Chemistry at the High School section. It is after reiterating these aspects, regarding the pre-existing state of affairs, that the Government has stated in para 3 thereof that, therefore, the candidates who possess B.Sc. Degree should necessarily have studied Physics/Chemistry, as the case may be, as the main subject, along with Chemistry/Physics as subsidiary subjects, in order to get appointment as HSA (Physical Science).

OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..136..

18.ii.5) Further, a reading of Anx. A-137 G.O. would also indicate that the Government was not in the process of issuing a new norm, but was rejecting the contra pleas made by the candidates, who have not studied both the subjects as a subject at the B.Sc. Degree level, when the above said G.O. has been issued. The pre-existing state of affairs are clearly delineated with clarity and precision in Anx. A-137 G.O. Further that the said G.O. has been issued after securing the expert opinion of a professional autonomous body, in the field of educational research in the State of Kerala, the SCERT.

19. Some of the advocates concerned, appearing for the applicants, who have succeeded before the Tribunal, more particularly Sri. M.R. Hariraj, learned Advocate, has contended that, a perusal of Anx. A-3 G.O.(MS) No. 141/1988/G.Edn. dated 13.9.1988 would disclose that no straight jacket formula has been laid down by the Government, regarding the concept of subject, as far as core subjects of Physical Sciences, Natural Sciences and Social Studies are concerned. Further that, the only precise concept is in relation to the High School Assistant, in the core subject of OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..137..

Mathematics. Further that, in the core subject of Social Studies, what is stipulated by the Government is that the candidate should have a Bachelor of Arts Degree (B.A. Degree) in History/ Economics/Geography/Politics/Commerce/English Language & Literature/Philosophy/Music/Sociology as the main subject for graduation. Hence, it indicates that even a person who has studied B.A. (Music) as the main subject or B.A. (English Language & Literature) as the main subject, is treated as qualified to be appointed as HSA (Social Studies). Further that, the stipulation for HSA (Physical Science) is that the G.O. should be examined in that perspective. That, the stipulation of qualification for HSA (Physical Science), as per the said Anx. A-3 G.O. dated 13.9.1988, is that the candidate should have Physics/Chemistry/Home Science as the main subject for graduation at the B.Sc. Degree level. That, therefore, no hard and fast norm or straitjacket approach can be made for the core subject of Physical Science, Social Studies, etc. That, even for Natural Science, it is stipulated that, apart from Botany/Zoology/Microbiology, persons having B.Sc. Degree with Home Science (Main) or Geology (Main), are treated to have the accepted qualification. That, therefore, the stipulations in Anx. A-3 OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..138..

G.O. dated 13.9.1988 as well as the subsequent Government Orders, issued prior to the issuance of the instant Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016, would have to be understood and interpreted in that perspective. Moreover, Note (3) to Clause 7 of Anx. A-1 selection notification would also show that the applicants, who have succeeded before the Tribunal, and other similar candidates, should be treated to have the acceptable qualifications to hold the post of HSA (Physical Science). We are also of the firm view that there is no necessity to get into other core subjects, like Natural Sciences, Social Studies, Mathematics, etc., for understanding the nature of the B.Sc.Degree qualification, as far as HSA (Physical Science) is concerned.

20. We are of the view that the above said contentions advanced by Sri. M.R. Hariraj, learned Advocate appearing for the above said parties concerned, cannot have any relevance to adjudge the nature of the B.Sc. Degree qualification, as far as appointment to the post of HSA (Physical Science) is concerned, in view of the reasons already given hereinabove. Accordingly, we are not in a position to countenance the above said contentions of Sri. M.R. Hariraj, learned Advocate appearing for the respective parties OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..139..

concerned. In that regard, it will also be pertinent to refer to the expert opinion of the SCERT, as made out from materials like Ext.

R-15 series, more particularly, Exts. R-15 (b) & R-15 (e), produced along with the reply statement dated 13.8.2020, filed by additional respondents 15 to 18 in O.A. (Ekm) No. 917/2020 (which has led to O.P (KAT) No. 113/2021). The said reply statement, which has been produced as Ext. P-4 in O.P (KAT) No.113/2021, would also disclose the state of affairs as made out in Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019.

21. We have dealt with another dimension of the matter in the previous issue and have already held that, on and with effect from the issuance of Anx. A-5 G.O. dated 25.11.2009, there has been a substantial change in the policy intention objective of the Government and the said aspects borne out from the G.O. dated 25.11.2009 (Anx. A-5 herein) as well as the G.O. dated 2.7.1996 (Anx. A-4 herein), would clearly lead to the situation that the specific intention and objective of the Government is one which would be in consonance with the impugned stand of the PSC, as above. The pre-existing state of affairs are also disclosed in paras 2 & 3 of Anx. A-137 G.O dated 6.6.2019. The Government OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..140..

was not considering the issuance of a substantially different new norm, in the process of issuing Anx. A-137 dated 6.6.2019, and was only considering the contra representation made by the candidates with a contra plea, which is broadly in consonance with the plea made by the successful applicants herein. The Government has rejected the said plea, after referring to the pre-existing state of affairs, and has held that, if candidates have not secured B.Sc Degree with both Physics and Chemistry as above, then there will be serious deficiencies in such personnel teaching Physics and Chemistry subjects at the high school section, and that aspect is stated in para 2 of Anx. A-137 G.O. Para 3 of Anx. A-137 G.O would go one step forward, whereby the Government has taken the stand that such persons will not be able to properly teach Physics and Chemistry subjects at the high school level.

22. In the light of these aspects, the irresistible conclusion is that, what has been laid down by the Government in Anx. A-137 G.O dated 6.6.2019 is only a clarificatory or declaratory position, regarding the pre-existing state of affairs, and it is not a new norm, which is substantially or significantly different from the pre-

existing norm. In other words, this leads to the only conclusion OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..141..

that the norms at Anx. A-137 G.O dated 6.6.2019 is only clarificatory and declaratory of the pre-existing state of affairs and hence, the same will relate back to the prior period, including at the time when Anx. A-1 notification dated 30.8.2016 was issued.

In other words, Anx. A-137 G.O dated 6.6.2019 cannot be said to be merely prospective in nature, but would relate back to the prior period, as it is clarificatory, declaratory and explanatory in nature, and so it will have retro-active operation.

23. We have also heard Sri. Asok M. Cherian, learned Additional Advocate General, instructed by Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent-

State authorities in these cases. We specifically queried to him, as to whether Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 is declaratory or clarificatory in nature or whether it is prospective in nature. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that it has been stated by the Government in Anx. A-139 G.O dated 26.6.2019 that Anx. A-137 G.O dated 6.6.2019 will only have prospective effect from 6.6.2019 onwards. For the above stated reason, we are not in a position to countenance the said pleas.

24. Impact of Anx. A-139 G.O. (Ms.) No. 73/2019/G.Edn. dated 26.6.2019 :

OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..142..

The Government has issued Anx. A-139 G.O. dated 26.6.2019 as follows :

"കകേരള സർകക്കാർ സസംഗ്രഹസം പപക്കാ വവിവ .എചച.എസച .ടവി (ഫവിസവികൽ സയൻസച ) കയക്കാഗഗ്യത കഭദഗതവി - പക്കാബലേഗ്യ തതീയതവി വഗ്യക്തമക്കാകവി - ഉത്തരവച പപുറപചപപടപുവവിക്കുന . ================================================================= പപക്കാതുവവിദഗ്യക്കാഭഗ്യക്കാസ (പജ ) വകുപച ജവി .ഒ (കകേ )നസം .73 / 2019 /പപക്കാവവിവ തതീയതവി, തവിരുവനന്തപപുരസം 26/06/2019 ================================================================= പരക്കാമർശസം:- സ .ഉ (കകേ) നസം .58 / 2019 /പപക്കാ വവിവ തതീയതവി 06 -06 -2019 ഉത്തരവച ഫവിസവികേകച/പകേമവിസസവി പമയവിൻ ആയപു സം അകതക്കാപടക്കാപസം ഫവിസവികേകച /പകേമവിസസവി സബകവിഡവിയറവി നക്കായപുസം ബവിരുദസം കനടവിയവപര മക്കാതസം കകേരളത്തവിപലേ വവിദഗ്യക്കാലേയങ്ങളവിൽ എചച.എസച.ടവി ഫവിസവികൽ സയൻസച തസസവികേയവിൽ നവിയമവിചക്കാൽ മതവിപയനച കമൽ പരക്കാമർശസം പകേക്കാരസം ഉത്തരവക്കായവിരുന. ഇതവിനകേസം നവിയമവിതരക്കായ സർകക്കാർ/എയയ്ഡഡച സസ്കൂളവിപലേ അദഗ്യക്കാപകേർകച ഈ ഉത്തരവച ബക്കാധകേമക്കായവിരവികവിലേചപലേനസം പസസ്തുത ഉത്തരവവിൽപരക്കാമർശവിചവിരുന..

എനക്കാൽ 2016-പലേ പവി.എസച.സവി കനക്കാട്ടവിഫവികകഷൻ പകേക്കാരസം എചച.എസച.ടവി ഫവിസവികൽ സയൻസച തസസവികേയവികലേകച അകപക്ഷവിചച പരതീക്ഷപയഴപുതവിയ പലേരുപടയപു സം അകപക്ഷകേൾ അവർ ഫവിസവികേകച, പകേമവിസസവി എന രണപു വവിഷയങ്ങളപുസം പഠവിചവിട്ടവിലേചലേ എന കേക്കാരണത്തക്കാൽ നവിരസവികപചപപട്ടതക്കായവി സർകക്കാരവിനചപറ ശ്രദയവിൽ പപട്ടവിട്ടപുണച. ഇകക്കാരഗ്യത്തവിൽ വനവിട്ടപുള ആശയക്കുഴപസം പരവിഹരവിക്കുനതവിനക്കായവി കമൽ പരക്കാമർശവിചച ഉത്തരവവിനച 06/06/2019 മപുതൽ മക്കാതമക്കാണച പക്കാബലേഗ്യമപുളപതന വഗ്യക്തമക്കാകവി ഉത്തരവക്കാകുന.

(ഗവർണറപു പട ഉത്തരവവിനച പകേക്കാരസം) എസച വവി അനവിൽകുമക്കാർ പഡപഗ്യമട്ടവി പസക്രട്ടറവി "

The contents of para 1 of Anx. A-139 G.O refers to the broad contents of Anx. A-137 G.O dated 6.6.2019. Thereafter, the Government would state, in para.2 of Anx. A-139 G.O dated 26.6.2019, that the PSC has rejected the applications of various candidates, who have applied, in pursuance of the present Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016. In view of the impugned stand of the PSC as above, the Government has taken note of the OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..143..

said rejection and that therefore, to avoid confusion, it is ordered that Anx. A-137 G.O dated 6.6.2019 will have effect only from 6.6.2019 onwards. If the true essence and substance of a 'norm/order/law' is clarificatory, declaratory and explanatory in nature, the same would relate back and then, there is no question of the State authorities taking the stand that such a norm is in fact only prospective and not declaratory or clarificatory in nature. The State authorities cannot have the competence to say that white is black and the matter is as simple as that. Where an order, in substance and essence is clarificatory, explanatory or declaratory in nature, it will relate back and it will have retro-active operation as above, and then, even if the State authorities say otherwise, that the said norm is prospective and not clarificatory, then the same cannot have any legal impact or enforceability. Therefore, it is only to be held that the stand taken by the State Government in Anx. A-139 G.O dated 26.6.2019, regarding the so-called prospectivity of Anx. A-137 G.O dated 6.6.2019, is plainly unreasonable, capricious and even ultra vires, in the facts and circumstances of the case. As held by the Apex Court in para 30 of the decision in State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin & Ors. [AIR 1988 OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..144..

SC 162] that the Commission is an independent expert body and it has to act in an independent manner in making selection on the prescribed norms, and that the Service Commission has to take a firm stand on matters in making the selection, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the directions of the State Government, which are unsupported by the Rules.

24.1. Further, as already held by the Apex Court in Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana & Ors.

[(1986) 4 SCC 268, para 2], it shall be the onerous duty of the Public Service Commission to make available the list of qualified candidates, arranged in the order of merit, etc. and, in view of the position adumbrated in Rule 11(i) of the PSC Rules of Procedure, the Public Service Commission is invested with the duty coupled with the power to ensure that only candidates, who possess the prescribed qualifications are included in the eligible field of choice. In other words, Anx. A-139 G.O dated 26.6.2019 is only to be ignored inasmuch as it does not have any legal impact or validity, in view of the above said well-

settled legal position, as above.

OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..145..

24.2. In view of the above said position of law, it is ordered, in consideration of the prayer in O.A (Ekm) No. 788/2020 [which has led to O.P(KAT) No. 111/2021] that G.O(Ms.) No. 73/2019/G.Edn. dated 26.6.2019 (produced as Anx. A-16 therein/Anx. A-139 herein) will stand quashed and set aside, as it is ultra vires and unenforceable.

25. The impact of Anx. A-140 G.O. (Ms.) No. 118/2019/G.Edn. dated 8.8.2019 & Anx. A-141 G.O. (Ms.) No. 128/2019/G.Edn. dated 20.08.2019 :

Anx. A-140 G.O dated 8.8.2019, provides as follows:

"കകേരള സർകക്കാർ സസംഗ്രഹസം പപക്കാ വവിവ .എചച.എസച .ടവി (ഫവിസവികൽ സയൻസച ) കയക്കാഗഗ്യത കഭദഗതവി - ഉത്തരവച തതീയതവി വപര ബവിരുദസം കനടവിയവപരയപു സം 43, 51 എ, 51 ബവി അവകേക്കാശസം സവിദവിചവപരയപു സം ഒഴവിവക്കാകവി ഉത്തരവച പപുറപചപപടപുവവിക്കുന . ============================================================== പപക്കാതുവവിദഗ്യക്കാഭഗ്യക്കാസ (പജ ) വകുപച സ . ഉ (കകേ )നസം .118 / 2019 /പപക്കാവവിവ തതീയതവി, തവിരുവനന്തപപുരസം 08/08/2019 ============================================================== പരക്കാമർശസം:- 1 .സ .ഉ (കകേ) നസം .58 / 2019 /പപക്കാ വവിവ തതീയതവി 06 -06 -2019 2 . സ .ഉ (കകേ )നസം .73 / 2019 /പപക്കാവവിവ തതീയതവി, 26 -06 -2019

3. 26 -7 -2019 പലേ എചച (3 )/ 28387 / 19 /ഡവി .ജവി .ഇ നമ്പരക്കായ പപക്കാതുവവിദഗ്യക്കാഭഗ്യക്കാസ ഡയറകേക്ടറപുപട കേത്തച 4 . 26 -7 -2019 പലേ കപക്കാഗ്രക്കാസം 4 / 2992 / 19 /എസച .സവി .ഇ. ർ .ടവി നമ്പരക്കായ എസച .സവി .ഇ. ർ .ടവി ഡയറകേക്ടറപുപട കേത്തച ഉത്തരവച ഫവിസവികേകച/പകേമവിസസവി പമയവിൻ ആയപു സം അകതക്കാപടക്കാപസം ഫവിസവികേകച/പകേമവിസസവി സബവിഡവിയറവിയക്കായപുസം ബവിരുദസം കനടവിയവപര മക്കാതസം കകേരളത്തവിപലേ വവിദഗ്യക്കാലേയങ്ങളവിൽ എചച.എസ.ടവി ഫവിസവികൽ സയൻസച തസസവികേയവിൽ നവിയമവിചക്കാൽ മതവിപയനച പരക്കാമർശസം ഒനച പകേക്കാരസം ഉത്തരവക്കായവിരുന. ഈ ഉത്തരവവിനച 06/06/2019 മപുതൽ മക്കാതമക്കാണച പക്കാബലേഗ്യമപുളപതന പരക്കാമർശസം രണച ഉത്തരവച പകേക്കാരസം വഗ്യക്തമക്കാക്കുകേയപു സം പചയസ്തു.

OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..146..

എനക്കാൽ പരക്കാമർശസം ഒനച ഉത്തരവച തതീയതവി വപര ഫവിസവികേകച , പകേമവിസസവി എനവിവ രണപു സം കൂടവി ഉപവവിഷയമലേചലേക്കാപത ബവി.എസച.സവി ഫവിസവികേകച, പകേമവിസസവി എനതീ കകേക്കാഴകസ്സുകേൾ പഠവിക്കുകേയപു സം ഫവിസവികൽ സയൻസവിൽ ബവി എഡച കനടപുകേയപു സം പചയസവിട്ടപുളവർകച എചച.എസക്ടവി ഫവിസവികൽ സയൻസച തസസവികേയവിൽ നവിയമനസം ലേഭവിക്കുനതവിനച ഈ ഉത്തരവച സക്കാരമക്കായവി ബക്കാധവിക്കുപമനതവിനക്കാൽ അവപരയപു സം, എയയ്ഡഡച സസ്കൂളവിപലേ സസക്കാറഗ്യമട്ടറവി അവകേക്കാശവികേളക്കായ പകേ.ഇ.ആർ അദഗ്യക്കായസം XIV A റമൾ 43, 51 എ. 51 ബവി അവകേക്കാശവികേപളയപു സം ഈ ഉത്തരവവിനചപറ പരവിധവിയവിൽ നവിനസം ഒഴവിവക്കാകണപമന അകപക്ഷകേൾ സർകക്കാരവിനചപറ ശ്രദയവിൽപചപപട്ടവിട്ടപുണച.

മപുകേളവിൽ പരക്കാമർശവിച നക്കാലേച അഞച റവിപചകപക്കാർട്ടപുകേൾ പകേക്കാരസം പപക്കാതു വവിദഗ്യക്കാഭഗ്യക്കാസ ഡയറകേക്ടറപുസം എസച.സവി.ഇ.ആർ.ടവി ഡയറകേക്ടറപുസം നലേലവിയ ശുപക്കാർശകേൾ അടവിസസക്കാനമക്കാകവി സർകക്കാർ ഇകക്കാരഗ്യസം വവിശദമക്കായവി പരവികശക്കാധവിചപു. പരക്കാമർശസം ഒനച ഉത്തരവച തതീയതവിയക്കായ 06.06.19 വപര ഫവിസവികേകച, പകേമവിസസവി എനവിവയവിൽ ഏപതങവിലേപുസം ഒന മക്കാതസം ഉപവവിഷയമക്കായവി പഠവിചച ബവി.എസച.സവി ഫവിസവികേകച, പകേമവിസസവി എനതീ ബവിരുദസംകനടവിയവപരയപു സം 06.06.19-നച ഇകത രതീതവിയവിൽ പസസ്തുത കകേക്കാഴകച പഠവിചപുവരുനവപരയപു സം 06.06.19-കനക്കാ അതവിനുളവികലേക്കാ പകേഇആർ അദഗ്യക്കായസം XIV A റമൾ 43, 51 എ, 51 ബവി അവകേക്കാശസം സവിദവിചവപരയപു സം പരക്കാമർശസം ഒനച ഉത്തരവവിനചപറ പരവിധവിയവിൽ നവിനസം ഒഴവിവക്കാകവി ഉത്തരവച പപുറപചപപടപുവവിക്കുന.

(ഗവർണറപു പട ഉത്തരവവിനച പകേക്കാരസം) എ.ഷക്കാജഹക്കാൻ പസക്രട്ടറവി "

Anx. A-141 G.O. dated 20.08.2019, reads as follows :

കകേരള സർകക്കാർ സസംഗ്രഹസം പപക്കാതു വവിദഗ്യക്കാഭഗ്യക്കാസ വകുപച - എചച എസച ടവി (ഫവിസവികൽ സയൻസച) കയക്കാഗഗ്യത ഉത്തരവച തതീയതവി വപര ബവിരുദസം കനടവിയവപരയപു സം 43, 51 എ. 51 ബച അവകേക്കാശസം സവിദവിചവപരയപു സം ഒഴവിവക്കാകവി പപുറത്തവിറകവിയ സർകക്കാർ ഉത്തരവവിൽ - കഭദഗതവി വരുത്തവി -ഉത്തരവചപപുറപചപപടപുവവിക്കുന ==================================================== പപക്കാതുവവിദഗ്യക്കാഭഗ്യക്കാസ(പജ)വകുപച സ.ഉ.(കകേ) നസം.128/2018/പപക്കാ.വവി.വ തതീയതവി തവിരുവനന്തപപുരസം, 20/08/2019 ==================================================== പരക്കാമർശസം:-സ.ഉ.(കകേ) നമ്പർ 18/1/പപക്കാ.വവി.വ തതീയതവി 08.06.2018 ഉത്തരവച കമൽ പരക്കാമർശവിച സർകക്കാർ ഉത്തരവവിപലേ അവസക്കാന ഖണവികേയവിപലേ "ഫവിസവികേകച, പകേമവിസസവി എനവിവയവികലേപതങവിലേപുസം ഉപവവിഷയമക്കായവി പഠവിചച ബവി എസച സവി ഫവിസവികേകച, പകേമവിസസവി എനതീ ബവിരുദസം കനടവിയവപരയപു സം" എനച പതവിപക്കാദവിചവിട്ടപുളതച ഫവിസവികേകച, പകേമവിസസവി എനവിവയവികലേപതങവിലേപുസം മപുഖഗ്യ വവിഷയമക്കാകയക്കാ ഉപവവിഷയമക്കാകയക്കാ പഠവിചച ബവിരുദസം കനടവിയവപരയപു സം എനച തവിരുത്തവി വക്കായവികകണതക്കാണച.

പരക്കാമർശവിത ഉത്തരവച ഇപകേക്കാരസം കഭദഗതവികയക്കാപട നതീലേനവിൽക്കുനതക്കാണച.

(ഗവർണറപു പട ഉത്തരവവിനച പകേക്കാരസം) ചവിത പകേ. ദവിവക്കാകേരൻ അണർ പസക്രട്ടറവി "

OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..147..

25.1. It has been inter alia provided in the said G.Os that those candidates, who have secured B.Sc degree with Physics and Chemistry either as a main subject or as a subsidiary subject, as on 6.6.2019 (date of issuance of Anx. A-137 G.O dated 6.6.2019) and those persons who have secured admission to such B.Sc degree courses, as above, as on 6.6.2019 and those teachers of aided schools, who have secured statutory claims under Chapter XIVA, Rules 43, 51A, 51B, etc., as on 6.6.2019, are exempted from having the qualifications stipulated in Anx. A-137 G.O dated 06.06.2019. In other words, after stating about the pre- existing state of affairs, as per Anx. A-137 G.O dated 06.06.2019, the Government has subsequently stated in Anx. A-140 G.O. dated 08.08.2019 that if such ineligible candidates have secured their B.Sc degrees as on 06.06.2019, then they are exempted from the stipulations in Anx. A-137 G.O dated 06.06.2019. No temporary exemption is envisaged. So, what is intended to be conveyed by the Government is a wholesale permanent exemption. Still further, very surprisingly, the Government would state that if OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..148..

a person has joined for such B.Sc. degree course, as above, as on 06.06.2019, then he is also given a wholesale permanent exemption. It is a matter of common knowledge that the academic session of the B.Sc degree course for 2019-20 is for the period from 01.06.2019 upto 31.03.2020. So, if a person has secured admission for first year B.Sc degree course, as on 01.06.2019, in respect of such a course, then he is given a wholesale and permanent exemption, in the result that, if he is an open competition candidate, he could enjoy the said exemption till the completion of his upper age limit of 35 or, if he is a reserved turn candidate, he could enjoy the said exemption permanently till he completes the upper age limit, as the case may be, which is presently 38 years of age, in the case of OBCs and 40 years of age, in the case of SC/ST. So, if such a candidate is aged about 18 years as on June, 2019, then he could enjoy the said exemption benefit till the years 2036, 2039 & 2042, as the case may be, depending on as to whether the said person belongs to open competition/general category or OBC or SC/ST, as the case may be. Can there be anything more arbitrary and capricious OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..149..

than this? Prima facie, the answer appears to be very obvious, but we do not propose to finally deal with that issue. We have already held that Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 06.06.2019 is only a clarificatory and declaratory order, regarding the pre-existing state of affairs and the same would relate back. Thereafter, to give such wholesale and permanent exemption, as per Annexures A-140 & A-141 G.Os, prima facie appears to be highly capricious, arbitrary and such capricious decisions will detrimentally affect the rights of qualified candidates contained in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

25.2. We specifically queried to Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission, as to whether the PSC has been effectively consulted by the Government before the issuance of Anx. A-139 G.O dated 26.06.2019. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission would submit that the instructions he could receive is that the competent authority of the Public Service Commission has not been effectively and properly consulted with by the State Government before OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..150..

the issuance of Anx. A-139 G.O. dated 26.06.2019, Anxs. A- 140 & A-141 Government Orders, in accordance with the consistent conventions and past practices, regarding the consultation by the State Government with a constitutional functionary like the PSC. Further, we note that the expert opinion of the SCERT has been obtained prior to the issuance of Anx. A-137 G.O dated 06.06.2019. In a matter of this vital and substantial nature, the non-effective consultation with the PSC is to be held as a serious procedural impropriety. Hence, we would order that the State Government immediately set in motion effective and proper consultative process with the Public Service Commission about the matters in Anx. A-140 & Anx. A-141 Government Orders, as per the prescribed procedure and as per the past and consistent conventions and traditions in the matter and the sacrosanct nature of such consultative process by the State Government, with a constitutional functionary like the PSC, should be strictly adhered to by the State Government authorities in its letter and spirit and then should re-consider the matters arising out of Anxs. A-140 & OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..151..

A-141 G.Os. Since Anx. A-140 & Anx. A-141 Government Orders have been issued mid-way of the present selection process and as the matter referred to in Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 06.06.2019 is only a clarificatory, declaratory or explanatory order, as regards the pre-existing state of affairs, it is only to be held that the matters in relation to Annexures A-140 & A-141 Government Orders, cannot, in any manner, affect the present selection process, covered by Anx. A-1 notification dated 30.08.2016.

25.3. Sri. Asok M. Cherian, learned Additional Advocate General and Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, may give appropriate advice and instructions to the competent authority of the State Government in the General Education Department as well as the Public Service Commission, respectively. We would leave the matter at that and no further orders and directions are necessary. In view of these aspects, there is no necessity for us to consider the prayers made in O.A (Ekm) No. 788/2020, for setting aside and quashment of G.O.(Ms.) No. 118/2019/G.Edn. dated 08.08.2019 (Anx. A-18 OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..152..

therein/Anx. A-140 herein) and G.O.(Ms.) No. 128/2019 G.Edn. dated 20.08.2019 (Anx. A-19 therein/Anx. A-141 herein). These crucial aspects or matters have not been considered in its proper perspective by the Tribunal in the rendering of the impugned common verdict and hence, the findings, orders and directions, rendered by the Tribunal in the impugned common verdict, would deserve interdiction at the hands of this court, in exercise of the constitutional powers under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

26. We would also deal with certain other incidental issues and contentions raised by the parties. The learned Advocates appearing for the applicants, who have succeeded before the Tribunal have also raised a contention, based on the selection notification dated 15.09.2021, issued by the Public Service Commission for the next selection process, for the post of High School Teacher - Physical Science (Malayalam medium) in various Government departments. A copy of the said selection notification dated 15.09.2021, the last date of submission of which was upto 20.10.2021, has been produced as Ext. R1(3), along with I.A No. OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..153..

2/2022, filed by respondents 1 to 60 in O.P. (KAT) No. 261/2021 [original applicants in O.A. (Ekm) No.1042/2019]. It is pointed out by the said parties that Note (v) appended under Clause. 7 of the said selection notification dated 15.09.2021 (for category No.365/2021) reads as follows :

"7. Qualifications:

              (1)      .....................

                       XXX       XXX         XXX

              Note: i)           ...................

                                 XXX         XXX     XXX

                                 XXX         XXX     XXX

             v)        The       candidates    should      have      taken

Physics/Chemistry as main subject along with Chemistry/Physics as subsidiary subjects for graduation (GO(MS) No:58/2019/GEdn dtd 06.06.2019 GO(MS) No:73/2019/GEdn dtd

26.06.2019). As per GO(MS) No:118/2019/GEdn dtd 08.08.2019 and GO(MS) No:128/2019/GEdn dtd 20.08.2019 the candidates who have studied Physics/Chemistry as main or subsidiary subject for graduation till 06.06.2019 and those who are pursuing the said degree course as on 06.06.2019 are exempted from the provisions laid down in GO(MS) No:58/2019/GEdn dtd 06.06.2019 and therefore the candidates who have possessed the above degree course shall also be considered for the selection to the post."

27. It is urged by the learned Advocates concerned, appearing for those parties that the said selection notification dated 15.09.2021 has been issued after the issuance of Anx. A-137 OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..154..

G.O dated 06.06.2019 and after the issuance of the above said G.Os at Annexures A-139 to A-141 herein. In that regard, it is also pointed out that, after stipulating the norms at Anx. A-137 G.O dated 06.06.2019, the PSC has further stated that Anx. A-139 G.O dated 26.06.2019, Anx. A-140 G.O dated 08.08.2019 and Anx.

A-141 G.O dated 20.08.2019 would also be applicable for the said new selection process. Hence, it is argued by the learned Advocates for those parties that the PSC themselves have accepted the stand of the Government reflected in Annexures A-139 to A-141 G.Os and that therefore, it is only to be held that Anx. A-137 G.O is prospective only from 06.06.2019, as stated by the Government in Anx. A-139 G.O. dated 26.06.2019, etc. Hence, it is thus argued by those parties that, though Note (v) to Clause. 7 supra is for the next selection notification issued on 15.09.2021, the stand of the PSC therein is relevant and that therefore, the PSC is estopped from contending that Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 06.06.2019 is not merely prospective, but declaratory and clarificatory in nature, etc. and that equally the PSC cannot contend against Anx. A-139 G.O., which has stated that Anx. A-137 G.O. will be only prospective from 06.06.2019. We had given the opportunity to the Public Service OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..155..

Commission to file an affidavit on those matters, as per order dated 08.03.2022 in I.A. No.2/2022 in O.P. (KAT) No. 261/2021.

Pursuant thereto, the PSC has filed an affidavit dated 11.03.2022 in I.A. No. 2/2022 in O.P. (KAT) No. 261/2021. In para.5 of the said affidavit, it is stated by the PSC that the above said Note (v) was inserted in the next selection notification, in the light of the verdict of the Tribunal impugned in these O.Ps and that the said next selection notification was published on 15.09.2021 at a time when the impugned common verdict of the Tribunal rendered on 22.03.2021 had come into existence. In view of the adverse findings and orders by the Tribunal, as against the impugned stand therein of the PSC, the PSC thought it fit, out of considerations of propriety, that the above said clause should also be incorporated, as they are on the basis of the Government Orders issued as above.

Moreover, at that time, there was only an interim stay by this Court and the Tribunal has held that the persons, who are affected by the impugned stand of the PSC, should be treated as having acceptable qualifications, etc. Further, it is pointed out that, since the Tribunal's verdict was not then set aside and as the individual interim orders of stay passed in the O.Ps can operate only in OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..156..

relation to the execution and enforcement of the individual verdicts in those O.Ps, it cannot be said to have any general application and hence, considering all these aspects, the PSC thought it fit, out of propriety and deference, to incorporate the above said provisions in Note (v) supra of the next selection notification issued on 15.09.2021. We have already held clearly that the substance and essence of Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 06.06.2019 is that the same is only a clarificatory, declaratory or explanatory order in nature, which would relate back. Therefore, it is not merely prospective from the date of its issuance, etc. The PSC's version, as to how it was constrained to issue the above said Note (v) supra, appended to Ext. R1 (3), produced in O.P. (KAT) No. 261/2021 (new selection notification dated 15.09.2021), appears to be quite reasonable and proper. In fact, we note that the Service Commission has incorporated Note (v) out of propriety and deference to the Tribunal, inasmuch as the Tribunal's verdict was not set aside and individual interim stay orders, secured in individual O.Ps, can only relate to the stay of the enforcement and implementation of the individual verdicts in those particular cases and the same cannot have any general OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..157..

application.

28. Moreover, it has been held in decisions, based on Apex Court rulings that, if the superior court grants an interim stay of the judgment of the lower forum, then the same cannot have the effect of staying the ratio decidendi of those decisions and it can only have the effect of staying and keeping in abeyance the enforcement and implementation of the impugned verdict of the lower forum concerned. In the light of these aspects, the case of the applicants concerned cannot advance to any significant basis, merely on the basis of Note (v) issued by the PSC to the next selection notification dated 15.09.2021. That apart, five other original petitions have been filed by individual candidates, who are supporting the impugned stand of the PSC, as mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, the question of estoppel cannot have any significant effect, in the facts and circumstances of these cases, merely on the basis of Note (v) appended to the next selection notification.

29. The present disputes would not have arisen in the case of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Scheme. We are told that for the Kendriya Vidyalaya pattern, separate posts of Trained Graduate OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..158..

Teachers (TGTs) are appointed in separate disciplines of Physics and Chemistry, and that TGT (Physics) should have B.Sc Physics and B.Ed in Physical Science, and TGT (Chemistry) should have B.Sc. Chemistry with B.Ed. So also, separate posts of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) are provided at the Plus Two Stage.

Whereas, in the State of Kerala, there is only a combined post of HSA (Physical Science) at the High School level, and only at the Higher Secondary School (Plus Two level) that separate posts of Higher Secondary School Teachers are provided for Physics and Chemistry. From the submissions of the State, it appears that huge expenditure of the State will be involved for separate HSA posts in Physics and Chemistry in Government and aided schools, and that it is not a financially feasible policy option for the State, in view of serious financial constraints.

30. The above discussion is to be summed up as follows :

(1) There has been a substantial alteration in the stipulation of the B.Sc degree qualification, as far as the post of HSA (Physical Science) is concerned, on and with effect from the issuance of Anx. A-5 G.O. (Ms.) No. 227/2009/G.Edn. dated OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..159..

25.11.2009. Even prior thereto, a significant improvisation was made consciously by the Government by the issuance of Anx. A-4 G.O. (Ms.) No. 195/1996/G.Edn. dated 02.07.1996, regarding the necessity to have both Physics and Chemistry as subjects at the B.Sc degree level. For the above stated basis, we are of the view that, on and with effect from the issuance of Anx. A-5 G.O. dated 25.11.2009, the candidates concerned should have B.Sc. degree with Physics/Chemistry, as the case may be, as the main subject, with Chemistry/Physics, as the case may be, as the subsidiary subject, along with B.Ed in Physical Science, in order to be qualified for appointment as HSA (Physical Science) in Government Schools and this was the position, as on the date of issuance of Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.08.2016 and even as on the last date of submission of the application thereto, viz., 05.10.2016.

OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..160..

(2) Anx. A-137 G.O. (Ms.) No. 58/2019/G.Edn. dated 6.6.2019 is only a clarificatory, declaratory or explanatory order, regarding the pre-existing state of affairs and so, the same would relate back to the relevant period, prior to the issuance of Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.8.2016. Hence, a finding on the previous issue is thus all the more reinforced with the finding on this issue, regarding the declaratory and clarificatory nature and impact of Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 6.6.2019 and hence, this would fully reinforce and uphold the impugned stand of the PSC, impugned in the O.As filed before the Tribunal. As regards the prayer in O.A. No. 778/2020 which has led to O.P. (KAT) No. 111/2021, it is ordered that Anx. A-139 G.O. (Ms.) No. 73/2019/G.Edn dated 26.06.2019, is arbitrary and capricious and is ultra vires and is not legally enforceable and is set aside and quashed.

OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..161..

(3) The stipulations in Anx. A-140 G.O. (Ms.) No. 118/2019/G.Edn. dated 08.08.2019, as modified by Anx. A-141 G.O. (Ms.) No. 128/2019 G.Edn.

dated 20.08.2019, granting wholesale and permanent exemption, as mentioned hereinabove, is found to be prima facie illegal, arbitrary and capricious and will be violative of the rights of qualified candidates, conferred as per Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, the non-

effective consultation with the PSC, before the issuance of Annexures A-140 & A-141 G.Os, is to be prima facie held as vitiated as a serious and grave procedural impropriety. In view of the declaratory and clarificatory nature of Anx. A-137 G.O. dated 06.06.2019, the stipulations in Annexures A-140 & A-141 cannot, in any manner, affect the present selection notification covered by Anx. A-1 dated 30.08.2016. However, it is ordered that the competent authority of the State Government in the General Education OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..162..

Department will have effective, proper and full consultation with the Public Service Commission and strict adherence should be made by the State Government to maintain all the procedural norms and decorum required for consultation with the constitutional functionary, like the Public Service Commission, taking note of the consistent norms, precedents and conventions, regarding consultation between high powered bodies like the State Government and the Service Commission.

Such effective consultation should be made by the respondent-State Government authorities, who will seriously re-consider the matters in relation to the issuance of Anx. A-140 and Anx. A-141 Government Orders, through such effective and proper consultation with the PSC and then take a lawful decision in the matter, in accordance with law and by giving due deference to the considered views of the Public Service Commission in that regard. Such process of consultation by the State OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..163..

Government with the PSC, regarding the re-

consideration of matters, in relation to Anx. A-140 & Anx. A-141 G.Os, should be duly effectuated and completed by the State Government, within a reasonable time limit. So, there is no necessity to consider the plea in O.A. No. 788/2020, which has led to O.P. (KAT) No. 111/2021 for quashment of Anxs. A-140 and A-141 Government Orders.

(4) Further, the rejection orders passed by the Public Service Commission, impugned in the above O.As filed before the Tribunal, is sustainable and tenable and reflects the correct legal position.

Further, the Tribunal has not considered the aforesaid various crucial and relevant aspects in its proper perspective.

31. In the light of these aspects, the common final order dated 22.03.2021, rendered by the Tribunal, impugned in these O.Ps, will stand set aside. The prayers in the original applications OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..164..

(which have been finally disposed as per the impugned verdicts), filed by the candidates to impugn the rejection orders passed against them by the PSC, will stand rejected. The other O.As, filed by the candidates supporting the PSC, will stand disposed of as above. Anx. A-139 G.O. dated 26.6.2019 is held ultra vires and unenforceable and is set aside. It has already been held that there is no necessity for this Court to consider the prayer in O.A. (Ekm) No. 788/2020, which has led to O.P. (KAT) No. 111/2021, for setting aside of the subsequent Government Orders issued at Anxs. A-140 & A-141 herein, in view of the findings and orders already made hereinabove.

32. As mentioned hereinabove, all the above original petitions, except six cases, have been filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Five out of the six O.Ps have been filed by candidates who support the impugned stand of the PSC.

The sixth case, viz. O.P. (KAT) No. 324/2021 has been filed by the applicants in O.A. (Ekm.) No. 2165/2021 and the said parties sail along with the applicants, who have succeeded before the Tribunal. The said O.P.(KAT) No. 324/2021 arises out of the impugned interim order dated 23.11.2021 in the said OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..165..

O.A. No. 2165/2021, whereby, the Tribunal has refused to grant the interim prayer in that O.A, so as to direct the respondent-PSC therein to advice list the applicants to the post of HSA (Physical Science) provisionally or to keep in abeyance the advice process from the present impugned ranked list, till the disposal of O.P. (KAT) No. 232/2021, which is one among the present 33 O.Ps, filed by the PSC, to challenge the present impugned verdict of the Tribunal as above. In effect, the applicants therein, who challenges the impugned rejection stand of the PSC, seeks for direction to advice list them, in pursuance of the impugned common verdict of the Tribunal, or to keep in abeyance the advice process altogether. The said interim prayer has been refused by the Tribunal, as per the impugned interim order dated 23.11.2021 in the instant O.A. No. 2165/2021, whereby the Tribunal has only ordered that the advice made will be subject to further orders in the O.P. (KAT) pending before this Court. In view of the above said findings and orders made by this Court in these O.Ps, it is only to be held that the prayers in O.P. (KAT) No. 324/2021 are only to be rejected.

Hence, with these observations and directions, all the Original OP(KAT) No. 261/21 & connected cases ..166..

Petitions, other than O.P. (KAT) No. 324/2021, will stand finally disposed of as above and O.P. (KAT) No. 324/2021 will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE MMG VGD APPENDIX OF OP(KAT).NO.261/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.1042/2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 30/08/2016 PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.76/80/G.EDN. DATED 06/06/1980 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 141/88/G.EDN. DATED 13/09/1988 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.195/96/G.EDN.

DATED 02/07/1996 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT- GOVERNMENT.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE G.O. (MS) NO.227/2009/G.EDN. DATED 25/11/2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.157/16/G.EDN.

DATED 20/09/2016 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 1ST APPLICANT DATED 08/04/2008 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TRUE COPY OF THEM.

ANNEXURE A7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 23/08/2012 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 1ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 2ND APPLICANT DATED 27/04/2015 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. ANNEXURE A8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 26/02/2016 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 2ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 3RD APPLICANT DATED 02/04/2012 AWARDED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE A9(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION DATED 20/10/2014 AWARDED BY THE MAHATAMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE 3RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 4TH APPLICANT DATED 05/01/2010 AWARDED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE A10(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 17/04/2012 AWARDED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY TO THE 4TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 5TH APPLICANT DATED 04/02/2013 AWARDED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE A11(A) TRUE COPY OF HE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION DATED 08/07/2015 AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE 5TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 6TH APPLICANT DATED 04/08/2012 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. ANNEXURE A12(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 24/04/2014 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 6TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 7TH APPLICANT DATED 01/06/2014 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. ANNEXURE A13(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 22/03/2018 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 7TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 8TH APPLICANT DATED 03/02/2015 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. ANNEXURE A14(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 26/02/2016 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 8TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 9TH APPLICANT DATED 15/07/2010 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. ANNEXURE A15(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 06/08/2016 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 9TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 10TH APPLICANT DATED 06/11/2004 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A16(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 11/05/2005 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 10TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 11TH APPLICANT DATED 06/06/2014 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A17(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 11/12/2014 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 116TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 12TH APPLICANT DATED 19/01/2012 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A18(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 15/03/2017 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 12TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A19 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 13TH APPLICANT DATED 22/06/2011 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A19(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 30/01/2016 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 13TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A20 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN CHEMISTRY OF THE 14TH APPLICANT DATED 28/03/2012 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A20(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED.) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 04/06/2016 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 14TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A21 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 15TH APPLICANT DATED 19/01/2011 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A21(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 16/07/2015 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 15TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A22 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 16TH APPLICANT DATED 16/03/2006 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A22(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 14/05/2010 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 16TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A23 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 17TH APPLICANT DATED 03/03/2006 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A23(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 14/06/2013 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 17TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A24 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 18TH APPLICANT DATED 07/06/2006 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A24(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 23/05/2013 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 18TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A25 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 19TH APPLICANT DATED 06/03/2006 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A25(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 09/07/2009 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 19TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A26 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN CHEMISTRY OF THE 20TH APPLICANT DATED 04/01/2007 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A26(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 31/8/2011 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 20TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A27 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN CHEMISTRY OF THE 21ST APPLICANT DATED 27/04/2009 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A27(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 28/11/2012 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 21ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A28 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 22ND APPLICANT DATED 18/07/2008 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A28(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 20/06/2012 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 22ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A29 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 23RD APPLICANT DATED 31/07/2008 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A29(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 24/03/2010 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 23RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A30 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 24TH APPLICANT DATED 07/05/2012 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A30(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 03/08/2013 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 24TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A31 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 25TH APPLICANT DATED 20/02/2010 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A31(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 06/08/2012 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 25TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A32 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 26TH APPLICANT DATED 11/02/2005 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A32(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 20/09/2007 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 26TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A33 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 27TH APPLICANT DATED 27/04/2006 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A33(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 04/06/2009 AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE 27TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A34 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 28TH APPLICANT DATED 01/12/2006 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A34(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) DATED 04/02/2013 AWARDED BY THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY TO THE 28TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A35 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 29TH APPLICANT DATED 13/01/2015 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A35(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 19/07/2017 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 29TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A36 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 30TH APPLICANT DATED 26/07/2012 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A36(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 22/03/2016 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 30TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A37 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 31ST APPLICANT DATED 03/05/2001 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A37(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 21/05/2005 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 31ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A38 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 32ND APPLICANT DATED 10/07/2014 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A38(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 28/09/2018 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 32ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A39 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 33RD APPLICANT DATED 18/09/2008 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A39(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 09/07/2013 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 33RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A40 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 34TH APPLICANT DATED 19/01/2011 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A40(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 24/02/2016 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 34TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A41 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 35TH APPLICANT DATED 20/10/2008 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A41(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 15/05/2013 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 35TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A42 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 36TH APPLICANT DATED 08/01/2009 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A42(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 10/05/2014 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 36TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A43 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 37TH APPLICANT DATED 13/10/2015 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A43(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 29/09/2015 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 37TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A44 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 38TH APPLICANT DATED 19/07/2006 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A44(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 11/04/2008 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 38TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A45 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 39TH APPLICANT DATED 19/07/2006 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A45(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 22/07/2008 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 39TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A46 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 40TH APPLICANT DATED 26/09/2011 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A46(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 07/11/2014 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 40TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A47 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 41ST APPLICANT DATED 31/05/2007 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A47(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 28/08/2010 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 41ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A48 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF 42ND APPLICANT DATED 24/12/2009 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. ANNEXURE A48(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 17/08/2018 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 42ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A49 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 43RD APPLICANT DATED 28/11/2014 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A49(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 25/09/2018 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 43RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A50 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 44TH APPLICANT DATED 18/12/2010 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A50(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 16/02/2015 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 44TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A51 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 45TH APPLICANT DATED 06/07/2006 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A51(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 03/04/2009 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 45TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A52 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN CHEMISTRY OF THE 46TH APPLICANT DATED 21/04/2009 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A52(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 27/07/2012 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 46TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A53 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN CHEMISTRY OF THE 47TH APPLICANT DATED 24/09/2010 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A53(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 25/08/2012 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 47TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A54 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 48TH APPLICANT DATED 19/12/2006 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A54(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 06/01/2009 AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE 48TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A55 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 49TH APPLICANT DATED 07/08/2008 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A55(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 30/03/2012 AWARDED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY TO THE 49TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A56 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DECREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 50TH APPLICANT DATED 03/05/2012 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A56(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 04/03/2017 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 50TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A57 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 51ST APPLICANT DATED 11/09/2006 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A57(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION DATED 30/09/2014 AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE 51ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A58 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 52ND APPLICANT DATED 17/02/2009 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A58(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE IN BACHELOR OF EDUCATION (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 25/03/2014 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 52ND APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A59 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 53RD APPLICANT DATED 24/02/2010 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A59(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION DATED 19/10/2013 AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE 53RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A60 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 54TH APPLICANT DATED 24/02/2010 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A60(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION DATED 25/06/2012 AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE 54TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A61 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 55TH APPLICANT DATED 23/12/2008 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A61(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION DATED 30/04/2013 AWARDED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY TO THE 55TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A62 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 56TH APPLICANT DATED 18/10/2003 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A62(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION DATED 25/02/2008 AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE 56TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A63 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 57TH APPLICANT DATED 07/03/2017 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A63(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION DATED 18/06/2014 AWARDED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY TO THE 57TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A64 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 58TH APPLICANT DATED 09/06/2014 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A64(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION DATED 12/07/2017 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 58TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A65 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN CHEMISTRY THE 59TH APPLICANT DATED 09/01/1998 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. ANNEXURE A65(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 03/11/1998 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 59TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A66 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 60TH APPLICANT DATED 03/10/2011 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A66(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE DATED 23/09/2015 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 60TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A67 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 1ST APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A68 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 2ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A69 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 3RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A70 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 4TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A71 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 5TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A72 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 6TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A73 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 7TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A74 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 8TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A75 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 9TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A76 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 10TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A77 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 11TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A78 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 12TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A79 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 13TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A80 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 14TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A81 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 15TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A82 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 16TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A83 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 17TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A84 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 18TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A85 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 19TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A86 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 20TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A87 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 21ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A88 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 22ND APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A89 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 23RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A90 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 24TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A91 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 25TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A92 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 26TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A93 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 27TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A94 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 28TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A95 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 29TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A96 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 30TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A97 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 31ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A98 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 32ND APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A99 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 33RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A100 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 34TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A101 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 35TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A102 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 36TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A103 `TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 37TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A104 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 38TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A105 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 39TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A106 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 40TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A107 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 41ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A108 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 42ND APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A109 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 43RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A110 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 44TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A111 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 45TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A112 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 46TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A113 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 47TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A114 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 48TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A115 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 49TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A116 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 50TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A117 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 51ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A118 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 52ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A119 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 53RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A120 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 54TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A121 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 55TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A122 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 56TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A123 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 57TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A124 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 58TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A125 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 59TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A126 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 60TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A127 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 3RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 4TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 5TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 16TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 18TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(E) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 27TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(F) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 28TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(G) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 29TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(H) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 31ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(I) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 32ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(J) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 34TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(K) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 35TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(L) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 38TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(M) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 40TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(N) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 41ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(O) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 42ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(P) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 45TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(Q) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 50TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(R) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 54TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(S) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 55TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A127(T) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 56TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 1ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 2ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 6TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 7TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 8TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(E) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 9TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(F) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 11TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(G) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 12TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(H) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 13TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(I) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 14TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(J TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 15TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(K) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 17TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(L) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 19TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(M) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 20TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(N) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 21ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(O) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 22ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(P) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 23RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(Q) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 24TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(R) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 25TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(S) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 26TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(T) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 30TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(U) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 33RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(V) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 37TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(W) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 39TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(X) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 43RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(Y) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 47TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(Z) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 51ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(AA) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 52ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(AB) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 53RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(AC) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 57TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(AD) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 58TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(AE) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 59TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A128(AF) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEBSITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 60TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A129 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST IN RESPECT OF THRISSUR DISTRICT PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 07/06/2019.

ANNEXURE A130 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST IN RESPECT OF PALAKKAD DISTRICT PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 31/05/2019.

ANNEXURE A131 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST IN RESPECT OF KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PUBLISHED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 31/05/2019.

ANNEXURE A132 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST IN RESPECT OF WAYANAD DISTRICT PUBLISHED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 28/05/2019.

ANNEXURE A133 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST IN RESPECT OF KASARGODE DISTRICT PUBLISHED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 10/05/2019.

ANNEXURE A134 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/21702/2017/DPI DATED 09/05/2017 BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.

ANNEXURE A135 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.2748/2014/H.EDN.

DATED 20/11/2014.

ANNEXURE A136 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.124474/GA IV J2/2014/ADKN DATED 13/11/2014 BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR FOR THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A137 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.58/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 06/06/2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION TO ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WITH ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A138 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST IN RESPECT OF MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PUBLISHED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 22/06/2019. (CAT NO.227/2016) ANNEXURE A139 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.73/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 26/06/2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A140 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.118/2019/G.EDN. DATED 08/08/2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A141 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.128/2019/G.EDN. DATED 20/08/2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A142 A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.150/2020/SS III BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANTS WITH ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A143 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/06/2012 IN O.A.NO.370/2012 OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE A144 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/10/2012 IN O.P.(KAT) NO.3407/2012 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A145 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF GO(MS) NO.238/85/GAD DATED 27/06/1985 BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SERVICES-D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A146 A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.186/2020/SS III BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA(EKM) 1042/2019 DATED 22/3/2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT).NO.199/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.917 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/08/2016 AS CATEGORY NO.227/16.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME OF THE COLLEGES UNDER THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY CONDUCTING B.SC. DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY OR PHYSICS COLLECTED BY THE APPLICANTS FROM THE WEBSITE.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.227/2009/GEDN. DATED 25/11/2009. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.226-227 OF 2015 DATED 8/1/2015. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/3/2016 IN OA.

(EKM) NO.477/15.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.584/18/G.EDN. DATED 6/2/2018.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/21/702/2017 DPI DATED 9/5/2017 WRITTEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE DY.DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS G.O.(RT) NO.2748/2014/H.EDN. DATED 20/11/2014.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.157/16/G.EDN. DATED 20/09/2016. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN ABOVE O.A. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ADDL. R15 TO 18 RESPONDENT IN THE ABOVE O.A. ANNEXURE R15A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SYLLABUS FOR B.ED. IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE R15B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PROG2/1647/18 SCERT DATED 11/6/2018.

ANNEXURE R15C TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.58/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 6/6/2019.

ANNEXURE R15D TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.73/2019 G.EDN DATED 26/6/2019.

ANNEXURE R15E TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PROG4/2992/2019/SCRT DATED 26/7/2019. ANNEXURE R15F TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.118/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 8/8/2019.

ANNEXURE R15G TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.128/2019/GEDN.

20/08/2019.

ANNEXURE R15H TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 29/8/2019 OF THE EQUIVALENCY STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE SCERT.

ANNEXURE R15I TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/09/2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA(EKM) 917/2019 DATED 22/3/2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 203/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.1223 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION (CATEGORY NO.227/2016) DATED 30.8.2016. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF HSA (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM (KASARGOD DISTRICT) DATED 29.9.2016.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST (CATEGORY NO.227/2016) PUBLISHED ON 10.5.2019. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE APPLICANT DATED 17.3.2004.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE M.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE APPLICANT DATED 10.10.2007.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF B.ED DATED 10.8.2009.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT SET CERTIFICATE OF THE APPLICANT DATED 4.7.2007.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS OF THE COURSE CHEMISTRY (MATERIAL SCIENCE).

ANNEXURE 10 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.73/2019/GEN.EDN.

DATED 26.6.2019.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN ABOVE O.A. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA(EKM) 1223/2019 DATED 22.3.2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 204/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.1830 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN KERALA GAZETTE DATED 30/08/2016.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION (SHORT LIST) SENIORITY LIST.NO.09/2019/DOE (CATEGORY NO.227/2016) DATED 30/05/2019.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF HE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO.E V (2) 33/19 DATED 09/08/2019.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO. E V(2) 33/19 DATED 09/08/2019.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION NO.EIV(2) 33/19 DATED 13/08/2019.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO.EIV(2) 33/19 DATED 13/8/2019.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.58/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 6/6/2019.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.73/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 26/06/2019.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.118/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 8/8/2019.

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.128/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 20/08/2019 (RELEVANT PORTION). ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF LETTER (FILE NO.EIV(2) 33/19 DATED 09/08/2019) RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA(EKM) 1830/2019 DATED 22/3/2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 205/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.12 OF 2020 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30/08/2016 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT (CATEGORY NO.227/2016).

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT THROUGH THE PORTAL OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (G.O.(MS) NO.58/19/G.EDN.).

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (G.O.(MS) NO.73/19/G.EDN.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/08/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (G.O.(MS) NO.118/19/G.EDN.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA(EKM) 12/2020 DATED 22/3/2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 206/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.1939 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/08/2016 AS CATEGORY NO.227/16.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO.(MS) NO.227/2009/G.EDN. DATED 25/11/2009. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.

226-227 OF 2015 DATED 08/01/2015.

ANNEXURE A4             TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/21702/2017/DPI
                        DATED   09/05/2017    WRITTEN  BY   THE  3RD

RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.58/2019/G.EDN. DATED 06/06/2019. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 5 IN ABOVE O.A. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA(EKM) 1939/2019 DATED 22/3/2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 207/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA(EKM) NO 1827 OF 2020 WITH ITS ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION NOTIFICATION DATED 30.8.2016 FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM-CATEGORY 227/2016 AANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 1ST APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM, CATEGORY ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM, CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 2ND APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM, CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE KANNUR DISTRICT ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC PHYSICS OF THE 1ST APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 10.8.2009 ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN B.ED WITH OPTIONAL SUBJECT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION OF THE 1ST APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 27.9.2011 ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC PHYSICS OF THE 2ND APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR DATED 13.5.2010 ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE M.SC IN PHYSICS OF THE 2ND APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR DATED 11.4.2012 ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN B.ED OF THE 2ND APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR DATED 22.7.2015 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN ABOVE OA EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO (EKM) 1827/2020 DATED 22.3.2021 APPENDIX OF OP(KAT).NO.210/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.1023 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.08.2016 AS CATEGORY NO.227/16 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME OF THE COLLEGES UNDER THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY CONDUCTING B.SC DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY OR PHYSICS COLLECTED BY THE APPLICANTS FROM THE WEBSITE ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS) NO.227/2009/GEDN DATED 25.11.2009 ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS 226-227 OF 2015 DATED 8.1.2015 ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.3.2016 IN OA (ERNAKULAM) NO.477/15 ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(RT) NO.584/18/G EDN DATED 6.2.2018 ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/21/702/2017 DPI DATED 9.5.2017 WRITTEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE DY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS G.O(RT) NO.2748/2014/H.EDN DATED 20.11.2014 ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(RT) NO.157/16/G.EDN DATED 20.09.2016 ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(RT) NO.58/2019/G.EDM DATED 6.6.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN ABOVE O.A. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA (EKM) 1023/2019 DATED 22.3.2021 APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 214/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. (EKM) NO. 917 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 18.08.2017 IN CATEGORY NO. 261/2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC PHYSICS DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST APPLICANT BY UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST APPLICANT BY UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE SET CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE B.S.C PHYSICS DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT BY UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT BY UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY 1ST APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY 2ND APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE REJECTION OF 1ST APPLICANT'S APPLICATION.

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE REJECTION OF 2ND APPLICANT'S APPLICATION.

ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.

H3/2702/2017/DPI DATED 09.05.2017 OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO DY. D.E. MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. G.O(MS) NO. 157/16/G.EDN. DATED 20.09.2016. ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2016 IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 537/15 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.

ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2016 IN W.P.C NO. 11910/16 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS OF B.ED ISSUED BY CALICUT UNIVERSITY FOR 2018-20.

ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR HSA (PHYSICAL SCIENCE).

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WITH ANNEXURE A19.

ANNEXURE A19 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF HSA (PHYSCIAL SCIENCE) FOR KOZHIKODE DISTRICT BOUGHT INTO EFFECT FROM 11.12.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WITH ANNEXURE 20 TO A24.

ANNEXURE A20 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 58/2019/G.EDN DATE 06.06.2019.

ANNEXURE A21 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 73/2019/G.EDN DATED 26.06.2019.

ANNEXURE A22 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 118/2019/GEDN.

DATED 08.08.2019.

ANNEXURE A23 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 128/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 20.08.2019.

ANNEXURE A24 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO. 25/19/SSSPL FOR HSA (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. OA (EKM) 1860/2018 DATED 22.03.2021.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 15/09/20221 WITH CATEGORY NO. 365/2021 TOWARDS THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) APPENDIX OF OP(KAT).NO.215/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA. (EKM) NO. 1468 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/08/2016.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS) NO. 227/2009/G.EDN. DATED 25.11.2009. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEALS NOS.

226-227 OF 2015 DATED 8/1/2015.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.

H3/21702/2017/D.P.I. DATED 9/5/2017 WRITTEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT) NO. 58/2019/G.EDN. DATED 6/6/2019. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN ABOVE O.A. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. OA(EKM) 1468/2019 DATED 22/3/2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 216/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA(EKM) NO.1195/2020 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC PHYSICS GRADUATE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE APPLICANT DATE 25/03/2009 ISSUED FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 06/10/2012 OF THE APPLICANT ISSUED FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT WITH PHYSICAL SCIENCE AS OPTIONAL SUBJECT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE OF THE KERALA TEACHER'S ELIGIBILITY TEST (KTET) OF THE APPLICANT DATED 05/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT FOR THE EXAMINATION OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM CONDUCTED ON 02/08/2018.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT .

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE SOME OF THE PRESCRIPTIONS OF DR.VISWANATHAN, VALLUVANAD HOSPITAL, KANNIAMPURAM, OTTAPALAM.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST OF THE CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE FOR THE INTERVIEW PUBLISHED ON 31/05/2019 IN THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE)-MALAYALAM MEDIUM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN ABOVE OA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. OA(EKM) 1195/2020 DATED 22/03/2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 218/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A (EKM) NO. 976 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION NOTIFICATION DATED 30.08.2016 FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM

- CATEGORY 227/2016.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), MALAYALAM MEDIUM - CATEGORY 227/2016 FOR THE WAYANAD DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF B.SC CHEMISTRY OF THE APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 09.06.2014. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED GRADE SHEET OF THE APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 05.04.2014.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF B.ED WITH OPTIONAL SUBJECT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE OF THE APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 22.08.2017.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS OBTAINED IN THE TWO SEMESTERS IN B.ED COURSE WITH OPTIONAL SUBJECT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE OF THE APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET FOR THE OMR TEST OF THE APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE DATED 22.05.2019 RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT THROUGH THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION'S WEB PORTAL.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.05.2019 FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BY THE APPLICANT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS IN ABOVE O.A. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA(EKM) 976/2019 DATED 22.03.2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 219/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM)NO.1466 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN KERALA GAZETTE DATED 30.08.2016.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION (SHORT LIST) SL.NO.09/2019/DOE (CATEGORY NO.227/2016) DATED 30.05.2019.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO.E V(2) 33/19 DATED 09.08.2019.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO.E V(2) 33/19 DATED 09.08.2019.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION NO.EIV(2) 33/19 DATED 13.08.2019.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO.EIV(2) 33/19 DATED 13.08.2019.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(M)NO.58/2019/G.EDN DATED 06.06.2019.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.73/2019/G.EDN DATED 26.06.2019.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.118/2019/G.EDN DATED 08.08.2019.

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.128/2019/G.EDN. DATED 20.08.2019 (RELEVANT PORTION).

ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (FILE NO.EIV(2) 33/19 DATED 09.08.2019 (RECEIVED BY 1ST APPLICANT). ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (FILE NO.EIV(2) 33/19 DATED 09.08.2019 (RECEIVED BY 2ND APPLICANT). ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (FILE NO.EIV(2) 33/19 DATED 09.08.2019) RECEIVED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (FILE NO.EIV(2) 33/19 DATED 09.08.2019) RECEIVED BY 4TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (FILE NO.EIV(2) 33/19 DATED 09.08.2019) RECEIVED BY 5TH APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (FILE NO.EIV(2) 33/19 DATED 09.08.2019) RECEIVED BY 6TH APPLICANT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IN ABOVE O.A. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA(EKM)1466/2019 DATED 22.03.2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 221/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.1231/2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN CATEGORY NO.227/2016 DATED 30.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE ISSUED TO THE 1ST APPLICANT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST FOR THE DISTRICT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SENIORITY LIST NO.15/19/DOT DATED 30.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST FOR THE DISTRICT KOLLAM SL. NO.15/2019/DOQ DATED 31.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST APPLICANT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST APPLICANT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.141/88/G.EDN.

DATED 13.09.1988.

ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.584/2018/G.EDN.

DATED 06.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NOS. 2 TO 4.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA 1231/2019 DATED 22.03.2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 222/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. (EKM) NO. 1179 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR GENERAL RECRUITMENT UNDER CATEGORY NO. 227/2016 DATED 30/08/2016 ISSUED PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC. CERTIFICATE DATED 07/08/2006 ISSUED BY KANNUR UNIVERSITY TO THEN IST APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED. CERTIFICATE DATED 21/10/2009 ISSUED BY KANNUR UNIVERSITY TO THE IST APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL), ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACTS THE PROFILE OF THE IST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC CERTIFICATE DATED 07/02/2008 ISSUED BY KANNUR UNIVERSITY TO THE 2ND APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED. CERTIFICATE DATED 06/06/2013 ISSUED BY KANNUR UNIVERSITY TO THE 2ND APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF THE PROFILE OF THE 2ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER A GO (MS) NO.

58/2019/G.EDN. DEPARTMENT DATED 06/06/2019 ISSUED TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIN LIST VIDE ITS NOTIFICATION SI.NO.12/2019/DIC UNDER CATEGORY NO. 227/2016 DATED 13/06/2019 PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER AS GO (MS) NO.

73/2019/G.EDN. DEPARTMENT DATED 26/06/2019 CLARIFYING ANNEXRE A10 GOVERNMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN ABOVE O.A. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. OA.(EKM) 1179/2019 DATED 22/3/2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 223/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A(EKM) NO 1658 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30-08-2016 AS CATEGORY NO. 227/16 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS) NO.

227/2009/G EDN DATED 25-11-2009 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS 226-227 OF 2015 DATED 8-1-2015 ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO H3/21702/2017/DPI DATED 9-5-2017 WRITTEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(RT) NO 58/2019/G.EDN DATED 6/6/2019 ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN ABOVE O.A EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. OA(EKM) 1658/2019 DATED 22-3-2021 APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 224/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.2756 OF 2017 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DRIV(3) 6663/07/GW DATED 25/03/2015.

ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED 08/01/2015 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.226/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES.

ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) TAMIL MEDIUM IN KOLLAM DISTRICT ON 27/10/2017.

ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) TAMIL MEDIUM IN WAYANAD DISTRICT ON 26/09/2017.

ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 12/04/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) TAMIL MEDIUM IN IDUKKI DISTRICT ON 30/10/2017.

ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET OF THE 4TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL. ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 3RD APPLICANT PROVIDED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET OF THE 2ND APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL. ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS OF THE 1ST APPLICANT PROVIDED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 4TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY MG UNIVERSITY ON 19/01/2004.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 4TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY MG UNIVERSITY ON 06/01/2001.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD APPLICANT ISSUED BY MG UNIVERSITY ON 26/05/2012.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD APPLICANT ISSUED BY MG UNIVERSITY ON 19/04/2011.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND APPLICANT ISSUED BY MG UNIVERSITY ON 25/07/2005.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND APPLICANT ISSUED BY MG UNIVERSITY ON 09/02/2007.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST APPLICANT ISSUED BY MG UNIVERSITY ON 28/05/2008.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST APPLICANT ISSUED BY MG UNIVERSITY ON 06/11/2006.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 29/06/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 17/09/2018 WITH ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A21 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR H.S.A.PHYSICAL SCIENCE (TAMIL MEDIUM) FOR IDUKKI DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A20 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR H.S.A. PHYSICAL SCIENCE (TAMIL MEDIUM) FOR WAYANAD DISTRICT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 17/09/2019 WITH ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A25 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO.128/2019/G.EDN. DATED 20/09/2019.

ANNEXURE A24 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO.118/2019/G.EDN. DATED 08/08/2019.

ANNEXURE A23 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO.73/2019/G.EDN. DATED 26/06/2019.

ANNEXURE A22 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO.58/2019/G.EDN. DATED 06/06/2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN ABOVE O.A. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA (EKM) 2756/2017 DATED 22/3/2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 225/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM)NO.1202 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.08.2016 AS CATEGORY NO.227/2016.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME OF THE COLLEGES UNDER THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY CONDUCTING B.SC. DEGREE OF CHEMISTRY OF PHYSICS COLLECTED BY THE APPLICANTS FROM THE WEBSITE.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS)NO.227/2009/G.EDN. DATED 25.11.2009. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.226-227 OF 2015 DATED 08.01.2015. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2016 IN O.A.(EKM)NO.477/2015.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (RT)NO.584/2018/G.EDN. DATED 06.02.2018.

ANNEXURE A7             TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/21702/2017/DPI
                        DATED   09.05.2017    WRITTEN  BY   THE  3RD

RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS G.O(RT)NO.2748/2014/H.EDN. DATED 20.11.2014.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(RT)NO.157/16/G.EDN. DATED 20.09.2016. ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (RT)NO.58/2019/G.EDN DATED 06.06.2019. ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (RT)NO.73/2019/G.EDN. DATED 26.06.2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN ABOVE O.A. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANTS.

ANNEXURE A12            TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY
                        THE     GOVERNMENT      AS     ORDER   G.O.

(MS)NO.141/88/G.EDN. DATED 13.09.1988. ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2012 IN O.A.NO.370/2012.

ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2016 IN O.A.(EKM)NO.537/2015.

ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION ASKED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 06.09.2019. ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.IDS-II(1) APPEAL/4911/19/GW DATED 12.11.2019 OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (RT)NO.118/2019/G.EDN. DATED 08.08.2019. ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (MS)NO.128/2019/G.EDN. DATED 20.08.2019. ANNEXURE A19 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION NO.4887 AND ANSWER AT THE FLOOR THE KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DATED 14.11.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA(EKM)1202/2019 DATED 22.03.2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 227/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA(EKM) NO.1456 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 03.12.2001 ISSUED BY THE MG UNIVERSITY TO THE APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 19.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY TO THE APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 09.01.2007 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO THE APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.03.2006 ISSUED BY THE MG UNIVERSITY TO THE APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17.03.2004 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.08.2016 FOR CATEGORY NO.227/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST DATED 30.05.2019 FOR CATEGORY 227/2016 FOR DISTRICT OF ERNAKULAM ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EIV (2) 33/19 DATED 09.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

EXHIBIT P 2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN ABOVE OA.

EXHIBIT P 3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA(EKM) 1456/2019 DATED 22.03.2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 229/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.1489 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN KERALA GAZETTE DATED 30.08.2016.

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION (SHORT LIST) SL.NO.09/2019/DOE (CATEGORY NO.227/2016) DATED 30/05/2019.

ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO.E.V.(2) 33/19 DATED 09.08.2019. ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO.E.V.(2) 33/19 DATED 09.08.2019 ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION NO.EIV (2) 33/19 DATED 13.08.2019.

ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO.E IV(2) 33/19 DATED 13.08.2019.

ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 58/2019/G.EDN DATED 6/6/2019.

ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.73/2019/G.EDN DATED 26.05.2019.

ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.118/2019/G,EDN DATED 08/08/2019.

ANNEXURE A10 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.128/2019/G,EDN DATED 20.08.2019 (RELEVANT PORTION). ANNEXURE A11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (FILE N.EIV (2) 33/19 DATED 09/08/2019) RECEIVED BY 1ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (FILE N.EIV(2) 33/19 DATED 09/*08/2019( RECEIVED BY 2ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A13 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER (FILE NO.EIV(2) 33/19 DATED 09/08/2019) RECEIVED BY 3RD APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A14 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER (FILE NO.EIV (2) 33/19 DATED 09/08/2019) RECEIVED BY 6TH APPLICANT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA(EKM)1489/2019 DATED 22/3/2021.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA(EKM) 1489/2019 DATED 22/3/2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 230/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO.1169/2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION (GAZETTE DATED 30/08/2016) PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.76/80/G.EDN DATED 06/06/1980 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) /141/88/G.EDN DATED 13/09/1988 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.195/96/G.EDN DATED 02/07/1996 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT-GOVERNMENT. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE G.O(MS) NO.227/2009/G.EDN DATED 25/11/2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.157/16/G.EDN DATED 20.09.2016 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC.DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 1ST APPLICANT DATED 15/05/2010 AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY. ANNEXURE A7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED 13.01.2016 TO THE APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 2ND APPLICANT DATED 15.01.2010 AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY. ANNEXURE A8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED 15.01.2013 TO THE 2ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 3RD APPLICANT DATED 3/3/2012 AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY. ANNEXURE A9(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED) IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION DATED 22/05/2014 AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE 3RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 4TH APPLICANT DATED 12/04/2011 AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY. ANNEXURE A10(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED ) N PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION DATED 24.10.2013 AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE 4TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN PHYSICS OF THE 5TH APPLICANT DATED 2/2/2013 AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY. ANNEXURE A11(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (B.ED IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION AWARDED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED 4/1/2016 TO THE 5TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 1ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 2ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 3RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 4TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION DETAILS ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 5TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEB-SITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 1ST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEB-SITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 3RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A19 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEB-SITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 4TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A20 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEB-SITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 5TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A21 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE PSC WEB-SITE RELATING TO THE PROFILE OF THE 2ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A22 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST IN RESPECT OF IDUKKI DISTRICT PUBLISHED AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 27/05/2019.

ANNEXURE A23 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/21702/2017/DPI.

THA.THEE. DATED 09/05/2017 BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.

ANNEXURE A24 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.2748/2014/H.H.EDN DATED 20.11.2014 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A25 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.124474/GA IV J2/2014/ADMN. DATED 13.11.2014 BY THE DEPUTY REGISTER FOR THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NOS 2 AND 3.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA 1169/2019 DATED 22/3/2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 231/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A(EKM) NO. 1028/2019 WITH ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE - A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.08.2016 WITH CATEGORY NO.227/2016 ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. ANNEXURE - A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET OF THE 1ST APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 1ST APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 2ND APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A5 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 3RD APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A6 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 4TH APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A7 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 5TH APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A8 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 6TH APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A9 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 7TH APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A10 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 8TH APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A11 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 9TH APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A12 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 10TH APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A13 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 11TH APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A14 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 13TH APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A15 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 14TH APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A16 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 15TH APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A17 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 18TH APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A18 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED NIL INTIMATING REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF THE 19TH APPLICANT AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - A19 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 227/2009/G.EDN DATED 25.11.2009.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.O.A (EKM) 1029/2019 DATED 22.03.2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 232/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.1108 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE IST APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE ISSUED TO THE IST APPLICANT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE ISSUED TOT HE 3RD APPLICANT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE ISSUED TO THE 4TH APPLICANT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST FOR THE DISTRICT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SL.NO.15/19/DOT DATED 30.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 11 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST FOR THE DISTRICT KOTTAYAM SL.NO.09/19/DOK DATED 31.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE IST APPLICANT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE B.EDC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE IST APPLICANT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 3RD APPLICANT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 3RD APPLICANT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 4TH APPLICANT BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE A19 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE IST APPLICANT BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE A20 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.141/88/G.EDN.

DATED 13.9.1988 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 21 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.584/2018/G.EDN.

DATED 6.2.2018 ISSUED BY THEIST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS, 2,3 & 4 IN ABOVE O.A. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COY OF ORDER NO.OA 1108/2019 DATED 26.3.2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 234/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.1471/2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF CATEGORY NO.227/2016 DATED 30.08.2016.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT DATED 24.09.2016.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGES ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT FROM OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF PSC. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST FOR THE DISTRICT MALAPPURAM SENIORITY LIST NO.12/19/DOM DATED 22.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE BSC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE M.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY/ ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.141/88/G.EDN DATED 13.09.1988.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.3841/18/G.EDN.

DATED 06.02.2018.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.OA 1471/2019 DATED 22.03.2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 237/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.1284/2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.08.2016.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME OF THE COLLEGES UNDER THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY CONDUCTING BSC. DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY OF PHYSICS COLLECTED BY THE APPLICANTS FROM THE WEBSITE.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS)NO.227/2009/G.EDN DATED 25.11.2009. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.226-227 OF 2015 DATED 08.1.2015. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2016 IN O.A.(EKM)NO.477/2015.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(RT)NO.584/2018/G.EDN DATED 06.02.2018.

ANNEXURE A7             TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/21702/2017/DPI
                        DATED   09.05.2017    WRITTEN  BY   THE  3RD

RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS G.O.(RT)NO.2748/2017/H.EDN. DATED 20.11.2014.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (RT)NO.157/16/G.EDN DATED 20.09.2016. ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (RT)NO.58/2019/G.EDN DATED 06.06.2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA 1284/2019 DATED 22.03.2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 239/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 1970/2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.08.2016 AS CATEGORY NO.227/2016 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS) NO.

227/2009/G.EDN. DATED 25.11.2009. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.

H3/21702/2017/D.P.I. DATED 09.05.2017. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS) NO.

58/2019/G.EDN. DATED 6.6.2019.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS) NO.

73/2019/G.EDN. DATED 26.06.2019.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS) NO.

118/2019/G.EDN. DATED 8.8.2019.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULED FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2019.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NOS. 2 & 5.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. OA 1970/2019 DATED 22.03.2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 241/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.788 OF 2020 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A10 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL NO.10/2019/DOP DATED 31/05/2019 FOR PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A11 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.227/2009/G.EDN.

DATED 25/11/2009.

ANNEXURE A12 A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 15/03/2014 ISSUED AS FIRST NCA NOTIFICATION FOR THE POST OF H.S.A.PHYSICAL SCIENCE UNDER CATEGORIES NO.46/2014 TO 50/2014.

ANNEXURE A13 A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 25/11/2014 ISSUED AS FIRST NCA NOTIFICATION FOR THE POST OF H.S.A.PHYSICAL SCIENCE UNDER CATEGORIES NO.485/2014.

ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL NO.12/2019/DOM DATED 22/06/2019 FOR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL NO.15/2019/DOQ DATED 31/05/2019 FOR KOLLAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL NO.15/2019/DOT DATED 30/05/2019 FOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL NO.09/2019/DOA DATED 31/05/2019 FOR ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL NO.09/2019/DOE DATED 30/05/2019 FOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL NO.12/2019/DOC DATED 13/06/2019 FOR KANNUR DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST NO.150/2020/SS III FOR WAYANAD DISTRICT PUBLISHED WITH EFFECT FROM 17/03/2020.

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL NO.11/2019/DOC DATED 31/05/2019 FOR KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 30/08/2016 FOR THE POST OF H.S.A. PHYSICAL SCIENCE IN THE GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT UNDER CATEGORY NUMBER 227/2016.

ANNEXURE A14 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.PROG2/1647/2018/SCRET DATED 11/06/2018.

ANNEXURE A15 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.58/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 06/06/2019.

ANNEXURE A16 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.73/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 26/06/2019.

ANNEXURE A17 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.PROG4/2992/2019/SCERT DATED 26/07/2019.

ANNEXURE A18 A TRUE COPY G.O.(MS) NO.118/2019/G.EDN. DATED 08/08/2019.

ANNEXURE A19 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.128/2019/G.EDN. DATED 20/08/2019.

ANNEXURE A20 A TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 29/08/2019 OF THE EQUIVALENCY COMMITTEE ATSCERT. ANNEXURE A21 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.PROG4/2992/2019/SCERT DATED 16/09/2019.

ANNEXURE A22 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04/04/2019 UNDER RTI TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A23 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE LETTER NO.IDA-11(4)/1525/2019/GW DATED 03/05/2019 REPLY FROM 3RD RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A24 A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 30/08/2017 FOR THE POST OF HSST UNDER CATEGORIES NO.328/2017 TO 341/2017.

ANNEXURE A25 A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CREDIT AND SEMESTER SYSTEM WITH GRADING FOR B.ED PROGRAMMES UNDER THE M.G.UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE A26 A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 18/08/2017 FOR THE POST OF H.SA PHYSICAL SCIENCE (MALAYALAM MEDIUM) (BY TRANSFER) UNDER CATEGORY NO.261/2017.

ANNEXURE A27 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY A PARENTS TO THE CHIEF MINISTER, EDUCATION MINISTER ETC.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.O.A.(EKM) 788/2020 DATED 22/3/2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 242/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. (EKM) NO. 1855/2018 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 18.08.2017 IN CATEGORY NO. 261/2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC CHEMISTRY DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT CERTIFICATE NO. 3831 DATED 01.11.2004.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA -CERTIFICATE NO. 091310 DATED 02.08.2006.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE SET CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT CERTIFICATE NO. 00120 DATED 30.07.2016.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE APPLICANT DATED 08.09.2017.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE REJECTION OF APPLICANTS APPLICATION.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.

H3/21702/2017/DPI DATED 09.05.2017 OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO DY. DE MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. G.O(MS) NO. 157/16/G.EDN DATED 20.09.2016. ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2016 IN OA(EKM) NO. 537/15 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2016 I W.P.C 11910/16 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PROSPECTUS OF B.ED ISSUED BY KERALA UNIVERSITY FOR 2016- 18. ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR HSA (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), DOWNLOADED FROM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION WEBSITE.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 00/01/2019 WITH ANNEXURE.

ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF HSA (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) FOR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BROUGHT INTO EFFECT FROM 11.01.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 22.08.2019 WITH ANNEXURE.

ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 58/2019/G.EDN DATED 06.06.2019.

ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 73/2019/G.EDN DATED 06.06.2019.

ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 118/2019/G.EDN DATED 08.08.2019.

ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 128/2019/G.EDN DATED 20.08.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. OA (EKM) 1855/2018 DATED 22.3.2021.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 15/09/2021 WITH CATEGORY NO. 365/2021 TOWARDS THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 243/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 1601/2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/08/2016 AS CATEGORY NO. 227/2016.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME OF THE COLLEGES UNDER THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY CONDUCTING B.SC DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY OF PHYSICS COLLECTED BY THE APPLICANTS FROM THE WEBSITE.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO./ 227/2009/G.EDN. DATED 25/11/2009. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS 226-227 OF 2015 DATED 8.1.2015.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/3/2016 IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 477/2015.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (RT) NO. 584/2018/G.EDN. DATED 6/2/2018. ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. H3/21702/2017/DPI DATED 9/5/2017 WRITTEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS G.O. (RT) NO. 2748/2014/H.EDN. DATED 20/11/2014.

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (RT) NO. 157/16/G EDN. DATED 20.09.2016. ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (RT) NO. 58/2019/G.EDN. DATED 6/6/2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF 2ND RESPONDENTS.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. OA 1601/2019 DATED 22/3/2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 244/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.880 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/08/2016 AS CATEGORY NO.227/2016 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME OF THE COLLEGES UNDER THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY CONDUCTING B.SC. DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY OF PHYSICS COLLECTED BY THE APPLICANTS FROM THE WEBSITE ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS)NO.227/2009/G.EDN.DATED 25/11/2009 ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.226-227 OF 2015 DATED 08/01/2015 ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/03/2016 IN O.A.(EKM)NO.477/2015 ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (RT)NO.584/2018/G.EDN DATED 6/2/2018 ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/21702/2017/D.P.I.DATED 9/5/2017 WRITTEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS G.O. (RT)NO.2748/2014/H.EDN.DATED 20/11/2014 EXHIBIT P2 REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IMPLEADING WITH ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE MA1 TRUE COPY OF B.SC, DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE MISC.APPLICANT WARDED BY KANNUR UNIVERSITY ANNEXURE MA2 TRUE COPY OF M.SC.DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE MISC. APPLICANT AWARDED BY THE BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY ANNEXURE MA3 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED. DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE MISC. APPLICANT AWARD BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA ANNEXURE MA4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION UPLOADED BY THE MISC.APPLICANT ANNEXURE MA5 TRUE COPY OF ADMISSION TICKER ISSUED TO THE MISC.APPLICANT BY THE PSC ANNEXURE MA6 TRUE COPY OF RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE PSC FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF HSA (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) DATED 22/06/2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA NO.(EKM)NO.880/2019 DATED 22/3/2021.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE CHART PUBLISHED BY THE P.S.C., FOR THE EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT OF KASARAGOD.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 245/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM)NO.1781/2020 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE KPSC NOTIFICATION DATED 30.08.2016 FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM:CATEGORY NOS 227/2016. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 1ST APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM: CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE WAYAND DISTRICT WITH REGISTRATION NO.P.101328.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 2ND APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM: CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT WITH REGISTRATION NO.P.100918.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 3RD APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM: CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 4TH APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM: CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 5TH APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM: CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 6TH APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM: CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 7TH APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM: CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 8TH APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM: CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 9TH APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM: CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE WAYAND DISTRICT ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 10TH APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM: CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE WAYAND DISTRICT ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 11TH APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM: CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 12TH APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM: CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE WAYNADD DISTRICT ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 13TH APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM: CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 14TH APPLICANT FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MALAYALAM MEDIUM: CATEGORY NOS 227/2016 FOR THE WAYAND DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC PHYSICS OF THE 1ST APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 30.06.2016. ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED WITH OPTIONAL SUBJECT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE OF THE APPLICANT 1 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 22.03.2018.

ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC PHYSICS OF THE 2ND APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 17.07.2012. ANNEXURE A19 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE M.SC PHYSICS OF THE 2ND APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 16.07.2015. ANNEXURE A20 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.ED WITH OPTIONAL SUBJECT PHYSICAL SCIENCE OF THE APPLICANT 2 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 23.05.2015. ANNEXURE A21 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC PHYSICS OF THE 3RD APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 20.09.2008. ANNEXURE A22 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE M.SC PHYSICS OF THE 3RD APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 27.03.2012. ANNEXURE A23 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.ED WITH OPTIONAL SUBJECT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE OF THE 3RD APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 09.08.2012. ANNEXURE A24 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC PHYSICS OF THE 4TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 20.01.2014. ANNEXURE A25 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE M.SC PHYSICS OF THE 4TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 24.06.2015. ANNEXURE A26 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.ED WITH OPTIONAL SUBJECT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE OF THE 4TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 12.07.2017. ANNEXURE A27 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC CHEMISTRY OF THE 5TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 01.09.2006. ANNEXURE A28 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE M.SC CHEMISTRY OF THE 5TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY DATED 04.10.2006. ANNEXURE A29 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.ED WITH OPTIONAL SUBJECT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE OF THE 5TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 16.01.2012. ANNEXURE A30 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION ACQUIRED BY THE 5TH APPLICANT DATED 15.06.2013.

ANNEXURE A31 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC INDUSTRIAL CHEMISTRY OF THE 6TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 01.04.2006.

ANNEXURE A32 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE M.SC CHEMISTRY OF THE 6TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY DATED 27.11.2007.

ANNEXURE A33 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.ED WITH OPTIONAL SUBJECT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE OF THE 6TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 03.10.2018. ANNEXURE A34 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC PHYSICS OF THE 7TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR DATED 21.06.2011. ANNEXURE A35 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE M.SC PHYSICS OF THE 7TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR DATED 01.04.2014. ANNEXURE A36 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.ED WITH OPTIONAL SUBJECT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE OF THE 7TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 09.12.2015. ANNEXURE A37 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC INDUSTRIAL CHEMISTRY OF THE 8TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 11.12.2006.

ANNEXURE A38 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.ED WITH OPTIONAL SUBJECT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE OF THE 8TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 17.12.2009. ANNEXURE A39 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC CHEMISTRY OF THE 9TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR DATED 24.09.2010. ANNEXURE A40 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CHEMISTRY OF THE 9TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 22.08.2012.

ANNEXURE A41 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.ED WITH OPTIONAL SUBJECT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE OF THE 9TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 18.06.2014. ANNEXURE A42 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC PHYSICS OF THE 10TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 15.02.2008. ANNEXURE A43 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE M.SC PHYSICS OF THE 10TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 15.05.2010. ANNEXURE A44 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.ED WITH OPTIONAL SUBJECT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE OF THE 10TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 22.06.2012. ANNEXURE A45 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC PHYSICS OF THE 11TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 24.06.2005. ANNEXURE A46 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.ED WITH OPTIONAL SUBJECT OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE OF THE 11TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE MG UNIVERSITY DATED 11.01.2007.

ANNEXURE A47 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC CHEMISTRY OF THE 12TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR DATED 28.10.2011. ANNEXURE A48 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CHEMISTRY OF THE 12TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY DATED 06.03.2013.

ANNEXURE A49 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.ED OF THE 12TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE PONDICHERY UNIVERSITY DATED 22.02.2016. ANNEXURE A50 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC CHEMISTRY OF THE 13TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 02.01.2009.

ANNEXURE A51 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CHEMISTRY OF THE 13TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE MG UNIVERSITY DATED 20.01.2011.

ANNEXURE A52 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.ED OF THE 13TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE MG UNIVERSITY DATED 01.10.2011.

ANNEXURE A53 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.SC PHYSICS OF THE 14TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 17.06.2010. ANNEXURE A54 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PHYSICS OF THE 14TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 17.11.2016. ANNEXURE A55 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE B.ED OF THE 14TH APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 04.01.2014.

ANNEXURE A56 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE FIRST APPLICANT THROUGH THE KPSC WEB PORTAL.

ANNEXURE A57 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE SECOND APPLICANT THROUGH THE KPSC WEB PORTAL.

ANNEXURE A58 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE THIRD APPLICANT THROUGH THE KPSC WEB PORTAL.

ANNEXURE A59 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE FOURTH APPLICANT THROUGH THE KPSC WEB PORTAL.

ANNEXURE A61 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE SIXTH APPLICANT THROUGH THE KPSC WEB PORTAL.

ANNEXURE A62 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE SEVENTH APPLICANT THROUGH THE KPSC WEB PORTAL.

ANNEXURE A63 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE EIGHTH APPLICANT THROUGH THE KPSC WEB PORTAL.

ANNEXURE A64 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE NINTH APPLICANT THROUGH THE KPSC WEB PORTAL.

ANNEXURE A65 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE TENTH APPLICANT THROUGH THE KPSC WEB PORTAL.

ANNEXURE A66 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE ELEVENTH APPLICANT THROUGH THE KPSC WEB PORTAL.

ANNEXURE A67 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE TWELFTH APPLICANT THROUGH THE KPSC WEB PORTAL.

ANNEXURE A68 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE THIRTEENTH APPLICANT THROUGH THE KPSC WEB PORTAL.

ANNEXURE A69 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE FOURTEENTH APPLICANT THROUGH THE KPSC WEB PORTAL.

ANNEXURE A70 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN A SIMILAR CASE IN OA (EKM) 976 OF 2019 DATED 18TH JUNE 2019.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA(EKM)NO.1781/2020 DATED 22.03.2021.

ANNEXURE A60 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE FIFTH APPLICANT THROUGH THE KPSC WEB PORTAL.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 254/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO.1882 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.08.2016 FOR THE POST OF H.S.A. IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE IN MALAYALAM MEDIUM FOR VARIOUS DISTRICTS, INCLUDING MALAPPURAM (CATEGORY NO.227/2016) ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST DATED 22.06.2019 PUBLISHED BY THE P.S.C. (SI.NO.12/19/DOM ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.58/2019/G.EDN DATED 06.06.2019 ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.73/2019/G.EDN DATED 26.06.2019 ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.118/2019/G.EDN DATED 08.08.2019 ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.128/2019/G.EDN DATED 20.08.2019 ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 09.04.2013 IN OA 368/2013 OF THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN SWAPNA SUKUMAR VS STATE OF KERALA (2015 KHC 4844) EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN ABOVE OA EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 WITH ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE G.P.(P0 NO.76/80/G.EDN DATED 06.06.1980 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (RELEVANT PAGES) ANNEXURE-R6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) /141/88/G.EDN DATED 13.09.1988 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-R6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.195/96/G.EDN DATED 02.07.1966 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

-GOVERNMENT ANNEXURE-R6(D) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE GO (MS) NO.227/2009/G.EDN DATED 25.11.2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-R6(E) TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.157/16/G.EDN DATED 20.09.2016 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-R6(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/201702/2017/DPI /THA.THEE DATED 09.05.2017 BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION ANNEXURE-R6(G) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.2748/2014/H.EDN DATED 20.11.2014 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-R6(H) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.124474/GA IV J2/2014 ADMN DATED 13.11.2014 BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR FOR THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA ANNEXURE-R6(IH) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2012 IN OP(KAT) NO.3407/2012 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA (EKM) 1882/2019 DATED 22.3.2021 APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 257/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.1471 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE - A1 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE APPLICANT AWARDED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE -A2 TRUE COPY OF THE M.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE APPLICANT AWARDED BY THE BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE -A3 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE AWARDED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.227/2009/G.EDN.

DATED 25.11.2009.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IN 2016(4) KHC 321.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UPLOADED BY THE APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE PSC.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 22.06.2019. ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF G. O. (MS) NO.58/2019/G.EDN. DATED 06.06.2019. ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.73/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 26.06.2019.

ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.118/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 08.08.2019.

ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.128/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 20.08.2019.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN ABOVE O.A. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ADDL. R4 & 5 RESPONDENTS IN THE ABOVE O. A. WITH ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE - R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF G.O.(P) NO.76/80/G.EDN. DATED 06.06.1980 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE -R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.141/88/G.EDN.

DATED 13.09.1988 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE - R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.195/96/G.EDN.

DATED 02.07.1996 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE - R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE G. O. (MS) NO.227/2009/G.EDN. DATED 25.11.2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE - R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.157/16/G.EDN.

DATED 20.09.2016 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE - R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/21702/2017/DPI/THA.THEE DATED 09.05.2017 BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.

ANNEXURE - R4(G) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.2748/2014/H.EDN.

DATED 20.11.2014 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE - R4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.124474/GA IV J2/2014/ADMN. DATED 13.11.2014.

ANNEXURE - R4(I) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2012 IN O.A.NO.370/2012 OF THE HONOURABLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE - R4(J) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2012 IN O. P. (KAT) NO.3407/2012 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. OA(EKM) 1471/2019 DATED 22.03.2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 113/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/08/2016.

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME OF THE COLLEGES UNDER THE 3RD RESPONDENT CONDUCTING B SC DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS COLLECTED BY THE APPLICANTS FROM THE WEBSITE. ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.227/2009/G.EDN, DATED 25/11/2019. ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.226-227 OF 2015 DATED 08/01/2015. ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/03/2016 IN OA EKM 477/2015.

ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.584/2018/G.EDN. DATED 06/02/2018.

ANNEXURE A7            A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/2170/2017/DPI
                       DATED   09/05/2017    WRITTEN  BY   THE   3RD

RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS G.O.(RT) NO.2748/2014/H EDN DATED 20/11/2014.

ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.157/2016/G.EDN. DATED 20/09/2016. ANNEXURE R.15A A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SYLLABUS FOR B.ED IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE ISSUED BY THE MG UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE R.15B A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PROG2/1647/2018/SCERT DATED 11/06/2018. ANNEXURE R.15C A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.58/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 06/06/2019.

ANNEXURE R.15D A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.73/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 26/06/2019.

ANNEXURE R.15E A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PROG.4/2992/2019/SCERT DATED 26/07/2019. ANNEXURE R.15F A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.118/2019/G.EDN. DATED 08/08/2019. ANNEXURE R.15G A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.128/2019/G.EDN. DATED 20/08/2019. ANNEXURE R.15H A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 29/08/2019 OF THE EQUIVALENCY, STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE SCERT.

ANNEXURE R.15I A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/09/2019. EXHIBIT P1 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WITHOUT THE ANNEXURES.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN A CONNECTED ORIGINAL APPLICATION, OA (EKM) 1042 OF 2019.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE ADDL 15TH TO 18TH RESPONDENTS IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST NO.293/2020/SSIII PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF H S A PHYSICAL SCIENCE (MALAYALAM MEDIUM) AS CATEGORY NO.227/2016 FOR KOZHIKODE DISTRICT WITH EFFECT FROM 21/10/2020.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/07/2020 IN OP(KAT) 216/2020.

EXHIBIT P7 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 22/03/2021 IN OA (EKM) NO.917/2019.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 111/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WITHOUT THE ANNEXURES.

EXHIBIT P1 (A1) A TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.08.2016 FOR THE POST OF HSA PHYSICAL SCIENCE IN THE GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT UNDER CATEGORY NUMBER 227/2016.

EXHIBIT P1 (A2) A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL.NO.11/2019/DOD DATED 31.05.2019 FOR KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

EXHIBIT P1 (A3) A TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST NO.150/2020/SS III FOR WAYANAD DISTRICT PUBLISHED WITH EFFECT FROM 17.03.2020.

EXHIBIT P1 (A4) A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL.NO.12/2019/DOC DATED 13.06.2019 FOR KANNUR DISTRICT.

EXHIBIT P1 (A5) A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL.NO.09/2019/DOE DATED 30.05.2019 FOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

EXHIBIT P1 (A6) A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL.NO.09/2019/DOA DATED 31.05.2019 FOR ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

EXHIBIT P1 (A7) A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL.NO.15/2019/DOT DATED 30.05.2019 FOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

EXHIBIT P1 (A8) A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL.NO.15/2019/DOQ DATED 31.05.2019 FOR KOLLAM DISTRICT.

EXHIBIT P1 (A9) A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL.NO.12/2019/DOM DATED 22.06.2019 FOR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

EXHIBIT P1 (A10) A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST SL.NO.10/2019/DOP DATED 31.05.2019 FOR PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

EXHIBIT P1 (A11) A TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.227/2009/G.EDN.

DATED 25.11.2009.

EXHIBIT P1 (A12) A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 15.03.2014 ISSUED AS FIRST NCA NOTIFICATION FOR THE POST OF HSA PHYSICAL SCIENCE UNDER CATEGORIES NO.46/2014 TO 50/2014.

EXHIBIT P1 (A13) A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 25.11.2014 ISSUED AS FIRST NCA NOTIFICATION FOR THE POST OF HSA PHYSICAL SCIENCE UNDER CATEGORY NO.485/2014.

EXHIBIT P1 (A14) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.PROG.2/1647/2018/SCERT DATED 11.06.2018. EXHIBIT P1 (A15) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.58/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 06.06.2019.

EXHIBIT P1 (A16) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.73/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 26.06.2019.

EXHIBIT P1 (A17) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.PROG.

4/2992/2019/SCERT DATED 26.07.2019. EXHIBIT P1 (A18) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.118/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 08.08.2019.

EXHIBIT P1 (A19) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.128/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 20.08.2019.

EXHIBIT P1 (A20) A TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 29.08.2019 OF THE EQUIVALENCY COMMITTEE AT SCERT.

EXHIBIT P1 (A21) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.PROG.4/2992/2019/SCERT DATED 16.09.2019. EXHIBIT P1 (A22) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04.04.2019 UNDER RTI TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P1 (A 23) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE LETTER NO.IDS-11(4)/1525/2019/GW DATED 03.05.2019 REPLY FROM 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A24) A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.08.2017 FOR THE POST OF HSST UNDER CATEGORIES NO.328/2017 TO 341/2017. EXHIBIT P1 (A25) A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CREDIT AND SEMESTER SYSTEM WITH GRADING FOR B.ED. PROGRAMMES UNDER THE M.G.UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P1 (A26) A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 18.08.2017 FOR THE POST OF HSA PHYSICAL SCIENCE (MALAYALAM MEDIUM) (BY TRANSFER) UNDER CATEGORY NO.261/2017.

EXHIBIT P1 (A27) A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY A PARENTS TO THE CHIEF MINISTER, EDUCATION MINISTER ETC.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN A CONNECTED ORIGINAL APPLICATION, OA (EKM) 1042 OF 2019.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST NO.293/2020/SSIII PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF HSA PHYSICAL SCIENCE (MALAYALAM MEDIUM) AS CATEGORY NO.227/2016 FOR KOZHIKODE DISTRICT WITH EFFECT FROM 21.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2020 IN OP(KAT)216/2020.

EXHIBIT P6 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 22.03.2021 IN OA(EKM) 788/2020.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 163/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.08.2016.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME OF THE COLLEGES UNDER 3RD RESPONDENT CONDUCTING BSC DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS COLLECTED BY THE APPLICANTS FROM WEBSITE.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.227/2009/G.EDN. DATED 25.11.2009. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.226-227 OF 2015 DATED 08.01.2015. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2016 IN O.A.(EKM) NO.477/2015.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT) NO.584/2018/G.EDN. DATED 06.02.2018.

ANNEXURE A7            TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/2170/2017/DPI
                       DATED   09.05.2017    WRITTEN  BY   THE  3RD

RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS GO(RT) NO.2748/2014/H.EDN DATED 20.11.2014.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO (RT) NO.157/2016/G.EDN. DATED 20.09.2016. ANNEXURE R15(A)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SYLLABUS FOR B.ED IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE ISSUED BY THE MG UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE R15(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PROG./2/1647/2018/SCERT DATED 11.06.2018. ANNEXURE R15(C) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.58/2019/G.EDN. DATED 06.06.2019. ANNEXURE R15(D) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.73/2019/G.EDN. DATED 26.06.2019. ANNEXURE R15(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PROG.4/2992/2019/SCERT DATED 26.07.2019. ANNEXURE R15(F) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.118/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 08.08.2019.

ANNEXURE R15(G) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.128/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 20.08.2019.

ANNEXURE R15(H) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 29.08.2019 OF THE EQUIVALENCY STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE SCERT.

ANNEXURE R15(I) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.09.2019. EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST NO.394/2020/SS II DATED 18.11.2020 FOR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PUBLISHED BY KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN O.A. (EKM) NO.917 OF 2019 BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ADDITIONAL BENCH AT ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 15 TO 18 IN O.A. (EKM) NO.917 OF 2019 BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ADDITIONAL BENCH AT ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P4        TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN O.A.(EKM)
                  NO.917    OF   2019    BEFORE   THE    KERALA

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, ADDITIONAL BENCH ERNAKULAM.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 200/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST NO.394/2020/SS II DATED 18.11.2020 FOR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PUBLISHED BY KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN OA(EKM) NO.880 OF 2019 BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ADDITIONAL BENCH AT ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.08.2016.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME OF THE COLLEGES UNDER 3RD RESPONDENT CONDUCTING BSC DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS COLLECTED BY THE APPLICANTS FROM WEBSITE.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.227/2009/G.EDN DATED 08.01.2015. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.226-227 OF 2015 DATED 08.01.2015. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2016 IN OA(EKM) NO.477/2015.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT) NO.584/2018/G EDN DATED 06.02.2018.

ANNEXURE A7             TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/2170/2017/DPI
                        DATED   09.05.2017    WRITTEN  BY   THE  3RD

RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS GO(RT) NO.2748/2014/H EDN DATED 20.11.2014.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.03.2021 IN OS (EKM) NO.880 OF 2019 OF THE LEARNED KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT ERNAKULAM. APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 226/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.1621/2020 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF B.SC.

PHYSICS.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF M.S.C. PHYSICS.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED. (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) DEGREE CERTIFICATE.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE M.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF GENERAL RECRUITMENT CATEGORY NO.227/2016 DATED 30/08/2016.

ANNEXURE A5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME COLLEGES UNDER CALICUT UNIVERSITY CONDUCTING B.SC. DEGREE IN PHYSICS/CHEMISTRY COLLECTED BY THE APPLICANT FROM THE WEBSITE.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/09/2016.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST IN WHICH APPLICANT IS INCLUDED CATEGORY NO.227/2016 DATED 30/05/2019.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT DATED 16/07/2019.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EIV(2) 33/19 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT DATED 09/08/2019.

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 26/10/2020.

ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT (CHANDRIKA ERNAKULAM EDN. ) DATED 23/10/2020.

ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.(ERNAKULAM) 880/2019 DATED 04/06/2019.

ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.(ERNAKULAM) 880/2019 DATED 03/09/2019.

ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.(ERNAKULAM) 880/2019 DATED 03/06/2020.

ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.227/09/G.EDN.

DATED 25/11/2009.

ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.226-227 OF 2015 DATED 08/01/2015.

ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.(EKM) 477/2015 DATED 16/03/2016.

ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.584/2018/G.EDN.

DATED 06/02/2018.

ANNEXURE A19 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3/21702/2017/DPI DATED 09/05/2017.

ANNEXURE A20 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.2748/2014/H.EDN.

DATED 20/11/2014.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN ABOVE O.A. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.OA(EKM) 1621/2020 DATED 22/3/2021.

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 324/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.11.2021 IN OA NO.2165 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF RANKED LIST NO.291/2020/SS II ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.10.2020.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.3.2021 IN OA NO.1108/2019.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN OP(KAT) NO.111 OF 2021 7 CONNECTED CASES DATED 22.10.2021.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICER, KASARAGOD DATED 12.11.2021.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court