The Manager vs Rince P. Sebastian on 9 October, 2025

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

The Manager vs Rince P. Sebastian on 9 October, 2025

The 4th respondent in W.P.(C)No.25167 of 2021 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The 1st respondent was appointed as HSA (Maths) as per Ext.P1 appointment order dated 05.06.2002 in Mar Thoma Girls Higher Secondary School, Thrissur. He was appointed as the Head Master of the School by virtue of Ext.P2 order dated 01.06.2016. Mar Thoma Girls High School was upgraded as a Higher Secondary School in the Academic Year 2010-2011. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent passed M.Sc. Degree in Mathematics from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University of Tamil Nadu State, in November 2013, and was awarded with Ext.P3 Degree Certificate. The Mahatma Gandhi University ('M.G.University' in short) issued him Ext.P4 Eligibility Certificate dated 07.07.2015.

2.1. The 1st respondent pleads that the promotion to the post of Principal in the Higher Secondary School is governed by Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of Kerala Education Rules ('KER' in short).

WA NO. 162 OF 2023 5 2025:KER:74558 The minimum approved teaching experience of 12 years at the High School level under the same Educational Agency is necessary for promotion to the post of Principal, as far as Head Master is concerned. The other mode of appointment to the post of Principal is by transfer from qualified Higher Secondary School Teachers ('HSST' in short) having 12 years of experience in the Aided School under the same Educational Agency. The 1st respondent completed probation in the category of Head Master as on 01.06.2017. Therefore, he informed the appellant-Manager that he is fully qualified to be promoted as Principal of the Higher Secondary School. As on 01.06.2017, none other than the 1st respondent was qualified to be promoted as Principal. But the Manager requested him to wait for some time. Finally, the 1 st respondent made Ext.P5 representation dated 26.03.2019 to the appellant seeking appointment to the post of Principal. But the Manager issued Ext.P6 reply dated 17.04.2019 to the 1 st respondent stating that there is no vacancy to accommodate him, since there is no workload to teach 16 periods of Mathematics per week.

WA NO. 162 OF 2023 6 2025:KER:74558 2.2. According to the 1st respondent, the issue with respect to the promotion to the post of Principal was already covered in his favour in Ext.P7 judgment dated 25.02.2016 of this Court in W.P.(C)No.19948 of 2013. Therefore, the 1st respondent filed Ext.P8 petition before the 4th respondent Deputy Director, Higher Secondary Education, seeking necessary directions to the Manager to appoint him as the Principal of the Higher Secondary School. His representation was not considered by the 4 th respondent. Since no orders have been passed by the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.14466 of 2019. By Ext.P9 judgment dated 27.05.2019, this Court directed the 4th respondent to consider the matter. However, after hearing of the 1st respondent, the 4th respondent passed Ext.P11 order dated 08.08.2019, rejecting his claim. It is stated in Ext.P11 order that promotion to the post of Principal is to be done along with the appointment of HSST. It is also stated in that order that since there is no vacancy of HSST (Maths), the 1st respondent's claim cannot be considered. Against Ext.P11 order, the 1st respondent filed Ext.P12 statutory appeal dated 28.08.2019 before the Government. Since the Government did not WA NO. 162 OF 2023 7 2025:KER:74558 consider the appeal, the 1st respondent again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.23931 of 2019. By the judgment dated 03.09.2019, this Court directed the Government to consider the claim raised by the 1st respondent. On the basis of the direction issued by this Court, the Government passed Ext.P13 order dated 01.10.2020, rejecting the claim of the 1st respondent. Challenging Exts.P11 and P13 orders, the 1st respondent once again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.24596 of 2020. By the interim order dated 09.03.2021, passed in that writ petition, this Court directed the Manager to re-hear all eligible teachers, including the 1st respondent, for promotion to the post of Principal. Accordingly, the appellant Manager considered the respective claims and issued Ext.P14 order dated 24.03.2021, again rejecting the claim of the 1st respondent. In that order, it was stated that since the 1st respondent is a Post Graduate in Mathematics, he has to teach 8 periods in a week. In the absence of a vacancy, his claim cannot be considered. It was also stated in that order that the 1st respondent has submitted his application only on 26.03.2019. Thereafter, when W.P.(C)No.24596 of 2020 was considered by this Court, a new contention was raised stating that WA NO. 162 OF 2023 8 2025:KER:74558 the post of Principal was not sanctioned by the Government for the Higher Secondary School. Therefore, even if the 1st respondent is qualified, he cannot be considered for promotion. However, this Court overruled the said contention and, accordingly, by Ext.P15 judgment dated 09.04.2021, the impugned orders were set aside, and the 4th respondent was directed to consider the fact as to whether the post of Principal was sanctioned in the year 2016.

2.3. Before the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent produced Ext.P16 Government Order dated 23.02.2013 along with Annexures, whereby the Government sanctioned the post of Principal for all the 147 Schools, including in Mar Thoma Girls High School. By Ext.P17 order dated 28.10.2021, the 4th respondent rejected the claim of the 1st respondent.

2.4. It is further pleaded by the 1st respondent that the appellant was aware of the fact that the 1st respondent had passed Masters Degree in Mathematics. In support of his aforesaid contention, he produced Ext.P18 relevant pages of his Service Book, wherein the educational qualification of the 1st respondent was endorsed on 15.06.2016. Similarly, Ext.P19 approved seniority list filed by the appellant as on 01.01.2015 is also WA NO. 162 OF 2023 9 2025:KER:74558 produced by the 1st respondent to claim that his qualification is entered therein and is known to the appellant. It is further pleaded in the writ petition that one Sri.L.Majush, who is now self- impleaded as the additional 6th respondent in this writ appeal, was acting as the Principal till this Court passed the interim order in W.P.(C)No.24596 of 2020. The 5th respondent was appointed as UPSA in the Higher Secondary School on 06.11.2004. Her continuous service is with effect from 01.06.2005. Later, she was promoted to the post of HSA on 01.06.2010. Still later, she was appointed as HSST (Junior) under by transfer category with effect from 04.01.2012. Thereafter, she became HSST with effect from 23.02.2013. The 5th respondent was not qualified to be appointed as Principal as on 01.06.2017, the date on which the 1st respondent was fully qualified for the post of Principal. The 5 th respondent was qualified for the post only on completion of 6 years of continuous service as HSST on 04.02.2018. The 5th respondent was junior to the 1st respondent in the cadre of HSA. When the Manager appointed the additional 6th respondent as Principal-In-Charge, nobody was qualified to be appointed as Principal. When the 1st respondent became fully qualified, the WA NO. 162 OF 2023 10 2025:KER:74558 Manager ought to have appointed him by replacing the additional 6th respondent, L.Majush. The additional 6th respondent continued even after 04.10.2018, ie, the date on which the 5th respondent Smt.Glenda Paul Valiyaveettil has qualified. With these averments, the 1st respondent filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

"i) To Issue a Writ of Certiorari; or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash Exhibit P-14 and Exhibit P-17 orders issued by the respondents.

ii) To declare that the petitioner is fully qualified to be promoted as principal of Mar Thoma Girls Higher Secondary School, Thrissur, with effect from 01.06.2017 onwards.

iii) To Issue a Writ of Mandamus; or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 4th respondent to promote the petitioner as Principal of Mar Thoma Girls Higher Secondary School, Trichur by replacing the 5th respondent from the post of Principal.

iv) To issue a Writ of Mandamus; or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of Mar Thoma Girls Higher Secondary School, Trichur, with effect from 01.06.2017 onwards."

3. In the writ petition, the 4th respondent Regional Deputy Director filed a counter affidavit dated 25.03.2022 producing therewith Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) documents. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that, as per Chapter XXXII of Kerala Education WA NO. 162 OF 2023 11 2025:KER:74558 Rules, 1959 ('KER' in short), a minimum approved teaching service of 12 years at Higher Secondary level under the same Educational Agency is required for promotion to the post of Principal. The 1st respondent was appointed as HSA on 05.06.2002 and as Head Master on 01.06.2016. He was not qualified to be appointed as the Principal when the High School was upgraded as a Higher Secondary School during 2010-2011, and he passed the M.Sc. Degree in Mathematics in November 2013. On 01.06.2016, the 1st respondent was promoted as Head Master of the High School, and it was approved on 20.10.2016. All the appointments have been completed by the Manager to all the HSST/HSST Junior posts created by the Government. Hence, no vacancy exists in the Higher Secondary section to appoint the 1st respondent as Principal, since the Principal should teach eight periods per week as per the Government Order dated 26.02.2021. The 1st respondent can be appointed as Principal in the above-mentioned School only if there is a vacancy of HSST (Maths) post. The 1st respondent submitted a request before the Manager to appoint him as Principal, specifying his qualifications only on 26.03.2019, and on 17.04.2019 itself the Manager sent a reply stating that WA NO. 162 OF 2023 12 2025:KER:74558 there is no vacancy to accommodate him as Principal. By verifying the documents, it is very clear that on 04.01.2018 itself, the 5 th respondent Smt.Glenda Paul Valiyaveettil HSST (Maths) has been qualified for the Principal post. As per the 2:1 proportion stipulated in Higher Secondary Special Rules under Chapter 32 Rule 4 of KER, the 5th respondent, who is the senior-most HSST was eligible to become Principal in the first turn. The appointment of the 1 st respondent leads to the creation of an additional post in the School, which leads to a huge financial burden on the Government. If the request of the 1st respondent is considered, the HSST (Junior) Mathematics, who has been working from 15.08.2013 in the permanent post, will be thrown out of the school. The creation of a supernumerary post will lead to a huge financial burden to the Government, and it will pave the way to file enormous writ petitions in such cases in future.

4. After hearing both sides and on consideration of the materials on record, by the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2022, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by quashing Exts.P14 and P17 orders. By the impugned judgment, it was declared that the 1st respondent is fully qualified to be WA NO. 162 OF 2023 13 2025:KER:74558 promoted as Principal of Mar Thoma Girls Higher Secondary School with effect from 01.06.2017 onwards. The appellant was directed to take appropriate steps to promote the 1st respondent as Principal with effect from 01.06.2017. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal.

5. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the additional 6th respondent, who was the person officiating as the Principal-in- Charge at the time when the 1st respondent made the representation before the Manager, was self-impleaded in the appeal. It is contended in the affidavit filed in support of the said interlocutory application by the additional 6th respondent that the 1st respondent is not qualified as per Rule 6 of Chapter XXIII of KER. As per the said Rules, for by transfer appointment to the post of Principal, he should have a Master's Degree with not less than 50% marks from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any of the Universities in Kerala. The Master's Degree obtained by the 1st respondent is from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in Tamil Nadu, and he has not produced the equivalency certificate to show that his Master's Degree is equivalent to the Master's Degree of any of the WA NO. 162 OF 2023 14 2025:KER:74558 Universities in Kerala. The 1st respondent produced Ext.P4 eligibility certificate, which cannot be a substitute for the equivalency certificate. The 1st respondent has not produced the equivalency certificate at any point of time, and he is not eligible to claim the post of Principal.

6. By filing I.A.No.2 of 2024, some of the HSSTs working in the Higher Secondary School were self-impleaded as additional respondents 7 to 11 in the writ appeal. The additional 6 th respondent produced Annexures R6(a) to R6(c) documents, and additional respondents 7 to 11 produced Annexures R7(1) to R7(8) documents in the writ appeal.

7. By filing I.A.No.4 of 2024, the appellant produced Annexure A1 equivalency certificate dated 10.04.2019 issued to the 1st respondent by the Registrar, University of Calicut.

8. In the writ appeal, the additional 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 19.11.2024, opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Manager, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned counsel for the additional 6th WA NO. 162 OF 2023 15 2025:KER:74558 respondent and the learned counsel for additional respondents 7 to 11.

10. The crux of the grounds of appeal and the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge ought to have found that the date of arising of vacancy does not have much significance as far as the qualification to the post is concerned and the factual and legal position as on the date the consideration of the eligible candidates alone has importance. There is no universal application that vacancies must necessarily be filled up on the basis of the law that existed on the date when they arose. There is no material on record to prove that the 1 st respondent raised his claim to be appointed as the Principal of the School before 26.03.2019, on which date, he submitted Ext.P5 representation before the appellant. On the said date, the 5 th respondent, Smt.Glenda Paul Valiyaveettil, who is an HSST in the School, was qualified to be appointed as the Principal. In fact, she was qualified on 04.10.2018 itself. Therefore, by relying on 2:1 ratio between HSSTs and Head Masters as provided in Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of KER, the 5th respondent alone can be appointed as the Principal of the Higher Secondary School. The appellant or WA NO. 162 OF 2023 16 2025:KER:74558 his predecessor in office had no occasion to verify Ext.P18 service book of the 1st respondent, and therefore, the qualification entered therein cannot be accepted in evidence to say that the appellant was aware of the acquisition of the qualification by the 1 st respondent. Ext.P19 seniority list was prepared on 01.01.2015, and the 1st respondent became the Head Master only on 01.06.2016. While preparing the seniority list of HSA, UPSA, and LPSA of the School, the Manager is not supposed to cross-check and verify each and every additional qualification acquired by the respective teachers.

11. The 1st respondent has no case that he had submitted Ext.P3 Degree certificate before the appellant prior to 26.03.2019. It is contended by the appellant that Ext.P4 eligibility certificate is dated 07.07.2015. Therefore, it is clear that he was not in possession of eligibility certificate while Ext.P19 seniority list was prepared. He never submitted Ext.P4 eligibility certificate prior to 26.03.2019. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that Ext.P4 eligibility certificate will not entitle the 1st respondent to be appointed as the Higher Secondary School Teacher since what is mandated is an equivalency certificate.

WA NO. 162 OF 2023 17 2025:KER:74558 Therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

12. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the 1st respondent was promoted as Head Master on 01.06.2016 and his probation was declared as on 01.06.2017. By Ext.P16 order dated 23.02.2013, the Government sanctioned the post of Principal, though Mar Thoma Girls High School was upgraded as a Higher Secondary School during the Academic Year 2010-2011 itself. Admittedly, none of the teachers in the School or in the Higher Secondary School were qualified to be appointed as Principal when Ext.P16 order was passed by the Government. The 1st respondent acquired M.Sc. Degree in Maths in November 2013, and was issued with Ext.P3 Degree Certificate. From Ext.P18 service book of the 1st respondent, it is evident that his qualification was endorsed therein on 15.06.2016. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was unaware of the qualification of the 1st respondent, as on 01.06.2017, the date on which the 1st respondent was qualified to become the principal, in the absence of other qualified hands in HSST. Hence, the appointment of the 5th respondent as the Principal of the Higher Secondary School, WA NO. 162 OF 2023 18 2025:KER:74558 who qualified only on 04.10.2018, is illegal. Therefore, no interference is needed to the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

13. The learned Senior Government supported the learned counsel for the appellant and argued that since there is already an HSST (Maths) in the Higher Secondary School, there is no class available for the 1st respondent to teach eight periods a week as mandated in the Rules. Moreover, the 1st respondent has produced the qualification certificate before the Manager only on 26.03.2019 and as on that date, the 5th respondent is a qualified HSST to be appointed as the Principal. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that the direction in the judgment to give promotion to the 1st respondent with effect from 01.06.2017 is incorrect since even the Ext.P4 eligibility certificate was produced in the year 2019. The learned counsel for the additional 6th respondent submitted that he is the next senior person to be appointed as the Principal after the 5th respondent, and hence he is interested in the matter. He also supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for WA NO. 162 OF 2023 19 2025:KER:74558 additional respondents 7 to 11 also supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.

14. Mar Thoma Girls Higher Secondary School, wherein the 1st respondent was initially appointed as HSA (Maths), became a Higher Secondary School by upgradation during the Academic Year 2010-2011. By Ext.P16 Government Order dated 23.02.2013, the post of Principal was sanctioned to the Higher Secondary School. The 1st respondent acquired M.Sc. Degree in Mathematics in November 2013 from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in Tamil Nadu state, and was issued with Ext.P3 Degree Certificate. He was appointed as Head Master of the High School on 01.06.2016, and his probation was declared as on 01.06.2017. The 5th respondent, who is a rival claimant to the 1st respondent, was appointed as UPSA on 06.11.2004, and she was promoted as HSA on 01.06.2010 and became HSST Junior by transfer with effect from 04.01.2012. She became HSST with effect from 23.02.2013 and was qualified for the post of Principal by completing six years of continuous service as HSST as on 04.02.2018. For the first time, the 1st respondent raised a claim for the post of Principal of the Higher Secondary School, WA NO. 162 OF 2023 20 2025:KER:74558 recordically is by Ext.P5 representation dated 26.03.2019 submitted before the appellant, though the 1st respondent says that he raised the claim orally prior to that date. By considering the claim as on 26.03.2019, it is the 5th respondent, who is a qualified person to be appointed as the Principal, the Manager took a decision to appoint the 5th respondent as the Principal and not the 1st respondent.

15. In order to understand the rival contentions raised by the 1st respondent as well as the appellant, it would be appropriate to go through the relevant provisions under the KER for effecting appointment to the post of Principal in the Higher Secondary Schools. As per Rule 6(1) of Chapter XXXII of KER, for appointment to the post of Principal in a Higher Secondary School by promotion, the person should possess:

"(1) Master's Degree with not less than 50% marks from any Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any University in Kerala.

(2) B.Ed. Degree from any Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any University in Kerala. (3) Minimum approved teaching experience of 12 years at Higher Secondary Level under the same Educational Agency."

Note 1 to 3 of that Rule read thus:

WA NO. 162 OF 2023 21 2025:KER:74558 "1. In the absence of persons having qualification as specified above, approved teaching experience at High School/Upper Primary/Lower Primary School's under the same Educational Agency shall be considered.

2. Such experience shall be reckoned only for qualifying Service and shall not be reckoned for Seniority.

3. Such persons must possess a minimum Service of Six years as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Senior/Junior)." The qualifications prescribed in that Rule for by transfer appointment are:

"(1) Master's Degree with not less than 50% marks from any of the Universities in Kerala or a Qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any University in Kerala. (2) B.Ed. Degree from any of the Universities in Kerala or qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any University in Kerala.

(3) Minimum approved teaching experience of 12 years under the same educational Agency."

16. Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of KER deals with method of appointment to the post of Principal as under:

"(1) By promotion from category 2 under the respective educational agency.

OR (2) By transfer from qualified Headmasters / Headmistresses of Aided High Schools and Vice-Principals of Aided Schools under the respective educational agency."

Note (iii) of that Rule read thus:

"(iii) The post shall be filled up by the methods specified in item

(i) and (ii) above in the ratio 2:1. If qualified candidates are not WA NO. 162 OF 2023 22 2025:KER:74558 available for appointment to a vacancy by any one of the methods specified above, such vacancies shall be filled up by the other method."

17. In this case, there are some admitted facts. The 1st respondent was qualified to be appointed to the post of Principal in the Higher Secondary School as on 01.06.2017 is admitted. It is also admitted that the 5th respondent was qualified for the said post only on 04.01.2018. Further, the fact that as on the date of Ext.P16 order allotting the post of Principal to the Higher Secondary School, there were no qualified hands to be appointed to that post, and also the fact that recordically the claim for appointment to that post was raised by the 1st respondent only on 26.03.2019, are also admitted.

18. As per Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of KER, the appointment to the post of Principal as specified in method (1) is to be at the ratio of 2:1. That is, the first two posts will go to the qualified HSST and the third one will go to the qualified Head Master. As per Rule 6(1) of Chapter XXXII of KER, a person to be qualified to be appointed for the post of Principal must possess a Master's Degree with not less than 50% of marks from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any of the Universities of Kerala. While raising his WA NO. 162 OF 2023 23 2025:KER:74558 claim, on 26.03.2019, the 1st respondent has produced Ext.P4 eligibility certificate dated 07.07.2015 issued by the M.G.University. According to the appellant and the contesting respondents, what is prescribed in Rule 6(1) of Chapter XXXII of KER is an equivalency certificate and not an eligibility certificate. The equivalency certificate dated 10.04.2019 was produced for the first time before this Court as Annexure A1 along with I.A.No.4 of 2024 dated 14.10.2024. The 1st respondent has no case that at any point of time he produced the said document before the appellant-Manager. Similarly, the 1st respondent has no case in the writ petition that the eligibility certificate produced by him before the manager, and the equivalency certificate prescribed in Rule 6(1) of Chapter XXXII of KER as one and the same.

19. As mentioned herein above, the 1st respondent has raised his claim for the post of Principal for the first time by Ext.P5 representation dated 26.03.2019. He is relying on Ext.P18 relevant page of the service register, to contend that the Manager was aware of the qualification acquired by the 1st respondent in the year 2016 itself, as he countersigned in that document. But it is pertinent to note that no where in the Rules, the 1st respondent WA NO. 162 OF 2023 24 2025:KER:74558 could point out that the Manager has a duty to invite a person to be appointed to the post of Principal, unless he produces his qualification certificates before the Manager. Moreover, as mentioned above, even if it is accepted that in Ext.P18, there is an endorsement made by the Manager recognising the qualification of Master's Degree acquired by the 1st respondent, by virtue of Rule 6(1) of Chapter XXXII of KER, that alone is not sufficient for considering the 1st respondent for the post of Principal. He has to further prove that he has an equivalent qualification as that approved by any of the Universities in Kerala, with not less than 50% marks. For ascertaining the same, the 1 st respondent himself has to produce the necessary documents before the Manager. In such circumstances, Exts.P18 service book and P19 seniority list relied by the 1st respondent to contend that as on 01.06.2017, he ought to have been selected by the appellant-Manager to the post of Principal of the Higher Secondary School, since no other qualified candidates were there at that point of time, has no bearing on the claim of the 1st respondent.

20. Moreover, while going through the facts of the case, we notice that the appellant-Manager had no intention to delay the WA NO. 162 OF 2023 25 2025:KER:74558 appointment of the 1st respondent, so as to select another person to the post of Principal. Even though the 5th respondent was qualified to be appointed as principal as on 04.10.2018, the appellant-Manager did not proceed to appoint the 5th respondent to the post of Principal till the 5th respondent raised a rival claim. Even as on 26.03.2019, it was only a temporary Principal was holding the charge, even though the 5th respondent was qualified for the post as on 04.10.2018.

21. It is trite that the right for promotion is to be considered in accordance with the rules in existence, as on the date of consideration for promotion. Therefore, the qualification of the person to be promoted is also to be assessed as on the date of consideration for promotion and not on the date of arising of the vacancy. Since, as on the date of raising the claim by the 1 st respondent, and consideration by the manager, by relying on the 2:1 ratio prescribed in Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of KER, it is the 5th respondent who has to be appointed to the post of Principal. We reached to the said finding not only for the reason that the 1 st respondent did not raise the claim to be appointed to the post of Principal till 26.03.2019, but also for the reason that he did not WA NO. 162 OF 2023 26 2025:KER:74558 produce the qualifying certificate, i.e., the equivalency certificate before the Manager at any point of time other than Ext.P4 eligibility certificate, which also was produced only on 26.03.2019.

22. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find that the learned Single Judge failed to consider these material aspects while allowing the writ petition. The claim of the 1st respondent, therefore, necessarily fails, and accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.25167 of 2021, and the writ petition stands dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications stand closed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE DSV/-

 WA NO. 162 OF 2023           27                 2025:KER:74558

                     APPENDIX OF WA 162/2023

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

Annexure I           TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS) NO. 52/2023 DATED
                     03.05.2023.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES

Annexure R6(a)       A COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER WITH REF :
                     AP-18/2013 DATED 01.06.2013.
Annexure R6(b)       A    COPY    OF     THE     APPROVAL   ORDER

NO.A5/8204/RDDE/HSE/2013 DATED 15.07.2013 BY THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

Annexure R6(c) A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.01/MTGHSS/2023 DATED 28.11.2023 BY THE MANAGER.

Exhibit R7(1) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.

A5/590/RDDE/HSE DATED 29.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST APPLICANT Exhibit R7(2) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.

A5/600/RDDE/HSE DATED 29.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND APPLICANT Exhibit R7(3) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.

A5/597/RDDE/HSE DATED 29.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 3RD APPLICANT Exhibit R7(4) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.

A5/599/RDDE/HSE DATED 29.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 4TH APPLICANT Exhibit R7(5) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.

A5/596/RDDE/HSE DATED 29.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 5TH APPLICANT Exhibit R7(6) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2018 IN WA NO. 2341/2018 Exhibit R7(7) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.

2896652/T1/2018/G.EDN DATED 14.05.2019 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit R7(8) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 52/2023/GEDN.

DATED 03.05.2023 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE EQUIVALENCY CERTIFICATE NO. PRODUCED ALONG EQ 82/2019 DATED 10.04.2019, ISSUED BY THE WITH I.A.NO.4 REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT OF 2024 WA NO. 162 OF 2023 28 2025:KER:74558 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES ANNEXRE R1(A) A COPY OF THE LIST OF APPROVED COURSE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXRE R1(B) A COPY OF THE EQUIVALENCY CERTIFICATE NO.

EQ/22527/2016 DATED 28/12/2016 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.

ANNEXRE R1(C) A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.

B2/5643/RDD/HSE/EKM/2019 DATED 20/3/2024 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXRE R1(D) A COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO.

DEOTSR/667/2023-B3 DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR.

ANNEXRE R1(E) A COPY OF THE GENUINESS CERTIFICATE NO.

MSU/COE/CERT/GENUINESS/2016 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MANONMANIAM SUNDARANAR UNIVERSITY, THIRUNELVELI.

ANNEXRE R1(F) A COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF TEACHERS OF MAR THOMA GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THRISSUR AS ON 01/01/2015.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court