Kerala High Court
Pradeep.T vs The State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2025
2025:KER:60083
WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 9465 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
PRADEEP.T
TRADESMAN (MECHANICAL),MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT,SWAMY NITHYANANDA POLYTECHNIC
COLLEGE,KANHANGAD P.O., KASARGOD - 671 315,
RESIDING AT KELOTH HOUSE, HARIPURAM P.O.,ANANDASRAM
(VIA), KASARGOD - 671 531.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR
SHRI.ASIF N
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE JUNCTION,GPO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,FORT P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
3 THE JOINT DIRECTOR
REGIONAL DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
KOZHIKODE - 673 009.
4 THE CHAIRMAN
GOVERNING BODY, SWAMY NITHYANANDA POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
KANHANGAD P.O., KASARGOD - 671 315.
5 THE PRINCIPAL
SWAMY NITHYANANDA POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,KANHANGAD P.O.,
KASARGOD - 671 315.
2025:KER:60083
WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018
2
BY ADVS. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
SHRI.K.SUJAI SATHIAN
SHRI.C.R.REGHUNATHAN
SHRI.B.HARRYLAL
SMT.PREETHI. P.V.
SMT.MARY LIYA SABU
SMT.AISWARYA S. ASHOKAN
SHRI.NEERAJ KRISHNA KUMAR
SHRI.ARAVIND K.
SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.)
SRI.E.G. GORDEN, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.08.2025, THE COURT ON 12.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60083
WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018
3
P.M. MANOJ, J
------------------
WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018
----------------------
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The short question mooted before this Court is whether an employee in the Subordinate Service who is qualified, but not in the Feeder Category, can be directly promoted as Lecturer when no other qualified person in the feeder category is available, especially when the Service Rules, i.e. Kerala Technical Education (Private Engineering Colleges/Polytechnics) Service Rules, 1975 (for short 'Service Rules, 1975') under Rule 3 and Rule 16 provide that direct recruitment to any posts shall be made only when qualified hands are not available for promotion from the immediate lower category.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was a Tradesman (Mechanical) in the Mechanical Engineering Department of Swamy Nithyananda Polytechnical College, Kanhangad. He joined the service on 07.09.2012 as a Tradesman (Mechanical) after obtaining a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. On completion of the period of probation on 07.09.2014, he was admitted under the Direct Payment Scheme 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 4 in the post with effect from 07.09.2014, by order dated 30.12.2014 of the Joint Director, Regional Directorate of Technical Education, Kozhikode. After having a part-time course, the petitioner obtained a first-class degree in Mechanical Engineering from Kannur University, as per the certificate dated 20.09.2017.
3. The next promotion posts available to him were Trade Instructor, then Workshop Instructor, and thereafter Lecturer. When a regular vacancy to the post of Lecturer arose due to the promotion of Sri.P. Vikraman as Head of the Department in the Mechanical Department of the Polytechnic on 01.06.2017, there was no other qualified persons in the category of Trade Instructor and Workshop Instructor available to fill the vacancy. Petitioner submitted a representation dated 07.11.2017 to the Joint Director, who was in charge of the management of the Polytechnic, based on an order by this Court, requesting to promote him to the post of Lecturer. However, the Joint Director by communication dated 06.02.2018 replied that the appointment can only be done by the management. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the management for promotion to the post of Lecturer through a representation dated 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 5 23.02.2018, wherein it was specifically appealed that he may be considered on the strength of Rule 3 and Rule 16 of the Service Rules, 1975 along with supporting decisions rendered by this Court in O.P. No.12161 of 2000 dated 09.09.2002 and WP(C) No.16472 of 2012 dated 25.02.2014. In those cases, it was held that if no person from the Trade Inspector category is eligible for promotion, then qualified individuals from lower categories, such as Tradesmen, can also be considered for promotion to higher posts, provided they meet the qualifications for the position. It is also contended that the 13:7 ratio, applicable to direct recruits and transfers, doesn't apply to Aided Polytechnical Colleges, based on a reply received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act'). Since he is the only person with a B.Tech degree in the college qualified to fill the post that arose on 01.06.2017, he is entitled to the appointment as a Lecturer under the transfer category.
4. Since no result was forthcoming, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Lecturer in the Mechanical Engineering Department of the 4th respondent's College, to the vacancy that arose on 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 6 01.06.2017 under the by-transfer category, and not to fill the said vacancy through direct recruitment, by considering his representation produced as Ext.P6.
5. In response to the contentions, Sri.T. Sethumadhavan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Sujay Sathyan contended that after filing the writ petition there was a change in the governing body with effect from 24.12.2021, which was approved by the AICTE, as well as the Director of Technical Education. It is further contended that the claim of the petitioner primarily stresses on Rule 3 and Rule 16 of the Service Rules, 1975, along with two judgments. There was only one post of Lecturer in the Mechanical Engineering Department in the year 2017, and the petitioner was not qualified for the post at the time of its occurrence.
6. The service conditions, in the matter of recruitment and filling up of the vacancy in the private polytechnic in the aided sector, are in pari materia with the service conditions of the Government Polytechnics. As per GO(P) No.366/2010/H.Edn., dated 08.11.2010, whereby an amendment was introduced to the Special Rules through Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2010 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 7 wherein, the appointment to the category of Lecturer in Engineering and Technology is made by direct recruitment and by transfer from the category of Instructor Grade I according to the seniority, in the absence of qualified hands in category No.2, i.e. by transfer from the category of Instructor in Engineering/Draftsman Grade I/Foreman belonging to the branch of Engineering Technology in which the vacancy arises. Note I to the Rules provides that a ratio of 13:7 is to be maintained between direct recruitment and by transfer. On the date the petitioner became qualified with First Class in B.Tech, only one post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering was available. There should be a minimum of two vacancies to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion, in order to maintain the prescribed ratio of 13:7. Therefore, he is not entitled to the vacancy that arose on 01.06.2017.
7. It is further contended that at present, the method of appointment and promotion to the post of Lecturer at the polytechnic in the aided sector is controlled by Regulations issued by AICTE with effect from 01.03.2019. As per Clause 2 (1) of the said Regulations, the method of appointment to the post of Lecturer is only by direct 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 8 recruitment; therefore petitioner is not entitled to claim promotion to the post of Lecturer by transfer. The AICTE Regulation was already adopted by the Government of Kerala, by issuing G.O(MS) No.291/2022/HEDN. dated 10.06.2022. It was further contended that Clause (3) of the Regulation further provides that all service conditions, including qualifications, experience, recruitment, promotions etc, shall come into force with effect from 01.03.2019. Clause 3(b) deals with qualification, experience, recruitment and promotions, etc, during 01.01.2016 to 01.03.2019 and the matter shall be governed by the AICTE pay scales, service conditions and qualification for the teachers and other academic staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulations, 2010 dated 05.03.2010 and subsequent notifications issued from time to time. Therefore, the petitioner's claim can be considered under the Special Rules of 2010, published as per GO(P) No.366/2010/H.Edn. dated 08.11.2010. It is further stated that since there was only a single vacancy available, the petitioner could not be considered for appointment by transfer till 01.03.2019. The second vacancy arose only on 01.05.2021 and the third vacancy arose on 01.06.2025, and as of now, the post of Lecturer is to be filled up only by direct recruitment as per the terms 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 9 of AICTE Regulations. It is further contended that there is no dispute with respect to the qualification of the petitioner. But, his eligibility will be considered on merit through the selection process for direct recruitment, which is to be conducted as per the Notification dated 05.03.2025.
8. In support of his contentions the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents brought to the attention of this Court, the decision in Premanandan v. Thiagarajar Polytechnic [1991 (2) KLT 872] , wherein it was held that merely because the petitioner has the necessary educational qualification to be considered for the higher post, that by itself will not be sufficient to give him promotion on the ground that he is the sole candidate in the feeder category when the Selection Board found him not suitable for promotion.
9. Those contentions are replied to by the learned counsel Sri.M.P. Ashok Kumar, that the move by the Institution as per Ext.P11 is against the Special Rules. When the Special Rules 1975 is in existence, it cannot be overridden by AICTE Regulations. Moreover, the conditions of age and qualification alone will directly apply in the case of Polytechnics and Engineering Colleges in the aided sector. This 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 10 part is clarified by the Director of Technical Education as per the information provided under the RTI Act, as evident from Ext.P9, wherein it is specifically stated that the ratio prescribed between the direct recruitment and by-transfer is not applicable in the case of Lecturer of Aided Polytechnical Colleges. It is contended that in the reply to a query on the application under RTI about ratio, it is specifically described by a diagram, how the turns of direct recruitment and by-transfer are affected. It is contended that even if the first vacancy is for direct recruitment, then at least the second vacancy that arose on 01.05.2021 shall be filled by a by-transfer appointment.
10. In support of his contention, the petitioner has produced two orders, i.e. Exts.P13 and P14, whereby the by-transfer promotions made by the College Authorities were approved by the Department. Ext.P13 is the case of one Sebastian Thomas, who was promoted to the post of Principal in the year 2022, by a by-transfer appointment. Then, by Ext.P14, one Narayanan M.M, was promoted from the post of Demonstrator in the Department of Civil Engineering by order dated 16.10.2021. Both these appointments were approved by the 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 11 Department and it is pertinent to note that the said approvals were after 01.03.2019, the date on which the 7th AICTE Regulations were implemented for the purpose of service conditions.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued by citing the decision of this Court in Rasha K. v. Kerala State Beverages (M.M) Corporation Ltd. [2024 SCC OnLine Ker 2599] wherein it was held that the conditions on the date of occurrence of vacancies are relevant for deciding the question of promotion. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:
"In the case at hand, there were no qualified and eligible hands as on the date of occurrence of vacancy. The Note to Rule 28(iA) above stipulates that, if as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy there are no qualified hands for promotion, then the person who gets qualified first thereafter is to be considered. Rule 28(bb) provides that, if promotion is dependent on the passing of any general or departmental examination, the conditions existing at the time of occurrence of the vacancy is relevant and not when the question of promotion is taken up."
12. In James Thomas v. Chief Justice (1977 KLT 622), a Full Bench of this Court declared that the general rule is; promotions are to be decided upon with reference to the time of occurrence of vacancies and not the time of making the appointments. In Varghese 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 12 v. State of Kerala (1981 KLT 458), another Full Bench of this Court, while concurring with the above, held that the 'relevant date' must be definite and not depend upon the volition of the authorities, as otherwise the determination will be arbitrary. It was held that there is definiteness in considering the date of occurrence of the vacancy as the 'relevant date' and that it would determine the title of the person to be considered for promotion.
13. Therefore, going by the provisions in the Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (for short 'KS&SSR') and the general principles, it is the date of occurrence of the vacancies that is relevant for deciding upon the question of promotion. Going by Rule 28(iA) KS&SSR, if on the date of occurrence of the vacancy, no qualified persons are available, then the person who gets qualified first thereafter is liable to be considered. If that principle is applied, there can be no dispute that the petitioner is first in the queue.
14. In James Thomas and Others supra, the court was of the view that the general rule of promotions should be made vis-à-vis the date of occurrence of the vacancy and not the date of making the appointment.
2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 13
15. In this regard, the learned Government Pleader, on the strength of counter affidavits filed by 2nd and 3rd respondents, submitted that a vacancy occurred due to promotion on 01.06.2017. The Institution being an aided one, the appointing authority is the management concerned. However, due to a dispute between the management, this Court directed to maintain the status quo, hence the day-to-day activities of staff and students were entrusted to the Joint Director, RDD Technical Education, Kozhikode. The promotion sought by the petitioner cannot be done by the RDD, as it is under the domain of management, the 4th respondent. The appointment and promotion are to be done by the management on the basis of Service Rules, 1975, especially under Rule 3 and Rule 16 of Part II of the Special Rules. It is stated by the 2nd respondent that direct recruitment to any posts shall be resorted to only when qualified hands are not available for promotion from the immediate lower category. Provided that the qualifications for both general and special categories are applicable to the corresponding categories of Government employees, and shall apply to the staff of private engineering colleges and polytechnics. There are three vacant posts for Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering at the 4th respondent's 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 14 College. First post occurred on 01.06.2017, second post on 01.05.2021, and third post on 01.06.2025. As per the existing Special Rules, GO(P) No.366/2010/H.Edn. dated 08.11.2010, the ratio of 13:7 is applicable. Therefore, the vacancy that arose on 01.06.2017 is to be filled by direct recruitment. It is further contended that in response to the notification dated 05.03.2025, 52 applications, including the application of the petitioner, have been received. The date of the interview has not been fixed due to the pendency of the case regarding the constitution of the selection committee in the aided polytechnics.
16. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
17. Going by the materials and the arguments placed before this Court, it appears that the petitioner was originally appointed as Tradesman (Mechanical) in the Mechanical Engineering Department of the 4th respondent's College, which is an aided Institution, on 07.09.2012. He got admitted under the direct payment scheme applicable in the aided institution with effect from 07.09.2014. Thereafter, while in service, he obtained B.Tech in Mechanical 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 15 Engineering with First Class. Though his next promotion posts are Trade Instructor, then Workshop Instructor, and thereafter to the post of Lecturer, he did not fall under any of those categories when a vacancy in the category of Lecturer arose on 01.06.2017. However, after acquiring a B.Tech qualification with First Class on 20.09.2017, he raised a claim against the post that became vacant on 01.06.2017.
18. The claim was raised before the Joint Director, Regional Directorate of Technical Education, Kozhikode as he was vested with the day-to-day affairs of the staff and students, as there was a management dispute. The Joint Director directed the petitioner to approach the management requesting a promotion to the post of Lecturer in the 4th respondent Institution in the Mechanical Department. However, no action was taken on such representation. That is the reason why the petitioner approached this Court. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to get the post on the strength of Rule 3 and Rule 16 of the Service Rules, 1975. Rule 3 specifies conditions of service which enable the management to make appointments to various categories of posts in their Institution either permanent, temporary or provisional. The qualifications and age are 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 16 subject to the criteria laid down by the Government from time to time in respect of corresponding posts in the Government Technical Institutions. However, the first proviso to Rule 3 provides that the direct recruitment to any posts shall be resorted to only when qualified hands are not available for promotion from the immediate lower category. It further provides that the qualification, both general and special and obligatory departmental tests applicable to the corresponding categories of government employees shall apply to the staff of private engineering colleges and polytechnics. From the above Rule and its provisions, it could be discernible that the qualification and age, especially general and special and obligatory departmental tests, are in accordance with the qualification applicable to corresponding categories of Government employees.
19. Rule 16 of the Service Rules 1975 specifies that the promotion will be affected to the higher grades from the next lower categories by promotion, subject to the rules in similar government institutions regarding qualification and method of appointment.
20. Accordingly, for the purpose of qualification and method of appointment, reliance is placed by the counsel for the respondents on 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 17 the Special Rules in which for the post of Lecturer, the age is specified as 30 years for degree holders and 38 years for diploma holders. Same is para materia to the Service Rules, 1975. The category in which the petitioner sought appointment comes under Class C- Polytechnics under the Special Rules, 1967. With respect to the qualification which is provided under Annexure, the Special Rules stand for Degree in appropriate branch of Engineering with not less than 60% marks in the qualifying examination and in the case of promotion from the feeder category, 60% of marks will not be insisted upon.
21. The method of appointment to the post of Lecturer is also provided under Rule 2 which states, in category C-Polytechnic, to the post of Lecturer/Post diploma Lecturer appointments are made ;
.By-transfer from Kerala Technical Education Subordinate Service from the category of Instructor Grade I Engineering Colleges/ Workshop Superintendent in Polytechnics/ Superintendent of Technical High Schools. Or . In the absence of qualified candidates, item No.1 above, by-transfer from Kerala Technical Education Subordinate service from the category of Assistant Lecturers/Instructor in Engineering Draftsman Grade I/Foreman belonging to 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 18 branch of Engineering/Technology in which vacancy exists or . In the absence of candidates under item 1 and 2 above, by-transfer from any other service in Technical Education Department. Or . In the absence of qualified candidates under item 1 2 and 3 by direct recruitment.
22. The primary stress of the argument of the petitioner was based on item 3 as he did not come under any of the Feeder category under 1 and 2. However, taking into consideration the argument of the learned Senior Counsel that the Special Rules have been amended with effect from 08.11.2010, the first method of appointment to the posts becomes direct recruitment and item No.3 is no longer available after the amendment.
23. On evaluating these arguments and in comparison with the Special Rules applicable to Private Engineering Colleges or Polytechnics, Rule 3 will prevail over the specific conditions of the Special Rules, wherein the first proviso which specifically stands for direct recruitment shall be resorted to only when qualified hands are not available for promotion from the immediate lower categories.
2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 19 Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the Special Rules applicable i.e. Special Rules, 1967, have no role in the case on hand, as the Rules stand for promotion in the first instance. But, Rule 16 stipulates that the post of Lecturer, being a selection post, shall be filled by the management on the recommendation of the governing body of the college or polytechnic, as the case may be.
24. The post had arisen on 01.06.2017. At that point of time, none of the respondents had a contention that any other qualified hands were available for promotion to the post of Lecturers and even the official respondents had no case that Rule 3 of the Service Rules, 1975 had been amended. Hence, the provisions in the Special Rules in contrary to the Service Rules, 1975, which are only pari materia in the case of age and qualification to the appointment and promotion in private aided engineering colleges and private Polytechnic colleges, cannot be taken into account. However, as per Ext.R6(b), the AICTE Regulations with respect to service conditions and career advancement scheme in respect of faculties in government and aided polytechnics in tune with 7th AICTE Regulations in the State have been 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 20 implemented by GO(MS) No.291/2022/H.Edn. Dated 10.06.2022 with effect from 01.03.2019.
25. As of now, there are three vacancies that arose on 01.06.2017, 01.05.2021 and 01.06.2025 and the 4th respondent College has already notified for direct recruitment for all the three vacancies. Only because of the pendency of litigation before this Court regarding the constitution of the Selection Committee in the aided polytechnic college, the date of interview was not fixed. The petitioner is also an applicant among the 52 applicants for direct recruitment.
26. However, as per the decision rendered by this Court in Rasha K supra, Varghese supra and James Thomas and others supra, the Rule applicable is the existing rule on the date of occurrence of vacancy i.e. Rule 3 of Service Rules 1975. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for consideration for promotion to the post of Lecturer on the basis of his qualification as First Class in B.Tech. As per Rule 28bb of Part II KS&SSR in the matters of promotion, what is relevant is qualification and eligibility at the time of occurrence of vacancy, and if no qualified and eligible candidates are available at 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 21 such point of time, the eligible employee who first acquires the qualification thereafter is liable to be considered for promotion. For the purpose of clarity relevant portion of Rule 28(b)(iA) and Rule 28(bb) of Part II KS&SSR are reproduced hereunder :
"(iA) Preparation of select list subsequent to the occurrence of vacancy:- When a select list is prepared subsequent to the occurrence of a vacancy, no person who was not qualified for inclusion in the select list at the time of occurrence of the vacancy shall be included in the select list for appointment against that vacancy.
Note:- If there are no qualified persons for promotion to a post on the date of occurrence of the vacancy, the person who gets qualified first thereafter, shall be considered for promotion to that post:
Provided that where the Special Rules in respect of the post provide that direct recruitment shall be resorted to in the absence of qualified candidates for promotion on the date of occurrence of the vacancy, recruitment to the post shall be made accordingly.
Xx xx xx xx
(bb) Promotion which depends upon the passing of any
examination.- Promotion in a service or class which depends upon the passing of any examination (General or Departmental) shall ordinarily be made with reference to the conditions existing at the time of occurrence of the vacancies and not with reference to those at the time when the question of promotion is taken up."
27. In the light of above provision as well as in the light of decisions in Rasha K which follows the Full Bench and Division Bench 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 22 judgments in James Thomas and others and Varghese and others supra, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer with effect from the date on which he is qualified against the post arose on 01.06.2017. In fact, this situation arose only because the appointment and promotion in the institution were stalled due to a management dispute; the petitioner cannot be penalised for that. However, this Court will not interfere with the notification already produced as Ext.P11 regarding the other two vacancies for Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, specifically those that arose on 01.05.2021 and 01.06.2025.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.M.MANOJ JUDGE ttb 2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 23 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9465/2018 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2014 PASSED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE DATED 20.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.01.2017 ISSUED TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE BY THE SENIOR JOINT DIRECTOR EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.11.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CVOMMUNICATION DATED 06.02.2018 RECEIVED FROM THE SENIOR JOINT DIRECTOR AND FORWARDED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PRINCIPAL.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.02.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MANAGEMENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP No.12161/2000 DATED 09.09.2002 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP© No.16472 OF 2012 DATED 25.02.2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ON THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY USHAPRIYA.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.12.2017 ISSUED TO ALL AIDED POLYTECHNIC COLLEGES BY THE SENIOR JOINT DIRECTOR.
2025:KER:60083 WP(C) No. 9465 of 2018 24 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DT 05/03/2025 Exhibit P12 True copy of RTI Application dt 04/10/2017 Exhibit P12(a) True copy of reply letter to Exhibit P12 issued by the office of 2nd respondent dt 17/10/2017 Exhibit P13 True copy of order No RDP1/1420/21/RDTEKZ dt 05/11/2021 issued by 3rd respondent Exhibit P14 True copy of letter No DP5/40254/18/DTE dt 23/07/2021 issued by the 2nd respondent Exhibit P15 True copy of order No SNP 18 EST 2018 dt 16/10/2021 issued by the 4th respondent Exhibit P16 True copy of the order No SNP 65 EST 2016 RDP1/2488/2017 dt 14/09/2017 issued by the 3rd respondent RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit R6(a) A true copy of the amended special rules 2010 published in the gazette dated 16-11-2010 Exhibit R6(b) A true copy of the G.O. issued by government of Kerala dated 10-06-2022.
EXHIBIT R3 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RDP1/2557/2012 DATED 12.12.2012.
EXHIBIT R3 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RDP1/1987/23/RDTEKZ DATED 05.07.2023.
EXHIBIT R3 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT APPROVAL ORDER No. RDP1/16/21/RDTEKZ DATED 24.09.2021.(TYPED COPY ALSO ENCLOSED)