Kerala High Court
The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 31 July, 2025
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 5990 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGER,
THUVAKKODE ALP SCHOOL, THUVAKKODE,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673304.
2 ARUNA HARIDAS,
LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, THUVAKKODE ALP
SCHOOL, THUVAKKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673304.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
ADV.JENZIA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE-
II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673101.
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
2
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673305.
5 ARIFA C.,
RESIDING AT KUNNATHUPARAMBA VEEDU,
P.O. PARAPPANPOYIL, THAMARASSERY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673573.
BY ADV.
DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM-FOR R5
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV TONY AUGUSTINE, GP - FOR R1 TO R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 31.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).7379/2019, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 7379 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
C.ARIFA
D/O.MUHAMMED,
KUNNATHUPARAMBU HOUSE,
PARAPPANPOYIL, THAMARASSERY-673 573.
BY ADV DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
JAGATHI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 305.
4 THE MANAGER,
THUVAKKODE AIDED L.P.SCHOOL, THUVAKKODE P.O.,
QUILANDY (VIA), CHEMENCHERY,KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT,PIN-673 304
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
4
5 P.C.TINTU,
LPSA, THUVAKKODE AIDED L.P.SCHOOL, THUVAKKODE
P.O., QUILANDY (VIA), CHEMENCHERY,KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT,PIN-673 304
6 ARUNA
LPSA, THUVAKKODE AIDED L.P.SCHOOL, THUVAKKODE
P.O., QUILANDY (VIA), CHEMENCHERY,KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT,PIN-673 304
BY ADVS.
SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3
SHRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, ADV.M.SAJJAD, ADV.JENZIA- FOR R4 & R6
SHRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN - FOR R5
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).5990/2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
5
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
As common issues are involved, these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in accordance with the array in W.P.(C)No.7379 of 2019.
2. Petitioner's father was Arabic Teacher of the 4 th respondent school and he died on 06.07.1990. Petitioner was aged 4 years at the time of the death of her father. Petitioner's grievance is that her claim under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV(A) of KER was overlooked by the Manager of the school and the Government rejected her claim.
3. Petitioner contends that Ext.P5 request dated 11.11.2004 was submitted by her to the manager immediately on completion of 18 years of age, raising a claim for 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 6 appointment under Rule 51B. She states that Ext.P8, another representation, was submitted on 01.09.2005 to the then manager. On 20.04.2009, petitioner claims to have sent another representation produced as Ext.P9 to the manager. However, it was returned to her stating that it was not known as to who was the manager. On 27.07.2012, petitioner approached the Assistant Educational Officer. On 03.09.2012, the 3 rd respondent issued Ext.P11 clarifying that the petitioner should approach the manager. On 02.01.2013, a registered letter was sent by the petitioner to the then manager. The same was returned 'unclaimed'. On 20.12.2016, Ext.P13 was issued by the manager to the petitioner, stating that her claim was time barred and cannot be considered. On 05.12.2016, another representation was submitted to the A.E.O.
4. No vacancy was available in the school from 2006-07 to 2017-18. A vacancy arose on 01.06.2017 and another arose on 01.06.2018. Respondents 5 and 6 were appointed against those vacancies. On 11.08.2017, petitioner approached the 3 rd 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 7 respondent requesting not to approve the appointment of the 5th respondent. The 3rd respondent rejected approval. The Manager, petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5990/2019, filed appeal before the 2 nd respondent on 12.07.2018. Fifth respondent thereafter filed W.P. (C)No.29211/2018. Pursuant to the judgment dated 10.09.2018 in the said writ petition the Government considered the appeal of the manager and the representation of the petitioner. By Ext.P19 dated 22.01.2019 Government found that there was nothing wrong with the appointment of the 5 th respondent and directed the A.E.O. to grant approval for the appointment of the 5th respondent. Further, it was observed in Ext.P19 that the manager shall consider the petitioner for appointment in the next arising vacancy. This direction issued by the Government is under challenge in W.P.(C)No.5990/2019 filed by the manager. By Ext.P20 dated 16.02.2019, request of the petitioner was rejected by the Government.
5. Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7379/2019 seeks to quash Exts.P19 and P20 orders issued by the Government. She seeks 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 8 direction to the 4th respondent to appoint her as LPSA with effect from 01.06.2017. In W.P.(C)No.5990/2019 the manager challenges the order dated 22.01.2019 to the extent it directs the manager to consider the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7379/2019 for appointment.
6. I have heard Sri.Dr.George Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Jenzia, learned counsel for the 4 th respondent, Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the 5 th respondent and Sri.Tony Augustine, learned Government Pleader.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.7379/2019 submitted that the petitioner raised a claim for appointment under Rule 51B OF KER immediately on attaining the age of majority. Several representations were submitted to the manager from time to time. The school was under different managers during the relevant period. However, the petitioner kept on repeatedly raising her claim. He submitted that details of representations submitted to the 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 9 manager by the petitioner are narrated in the writ petition. Ext.P12 is a list of representations submitted to the manager and also to the authorities of department. The learned counsel submitted that Ext.P9 sent through registered post on 20.04.2009 was returned to the petitioner with an endorsement that the manager was not known. He contended that the petitioner raised claim for appointment within the time limit stipulated under the relevant Government Order. Ext.P9 was submitted within two years from the expiry of the period stipulated. However, Government had power to condone the delay in submitting application for a period of two years and hence the representation was submitted within the extendable period. He contended that these aspects were not properly noted by the authorities while rejecting the request of the petitioner. He pointed out that in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Ext.P19 petitioner's contentions were noted. But the authority who issued Ext.P19 failed to analyse the facts and circumstances as well as the claim of the petitioner properly. The learned counsel 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 10 contended that the managers were refusing to acknowledge receipt of the representation submitted and the first communication issued by a manager was Ext.P13 wherein it was stated that the petitioner did not submit application for appointment invoking Rule 51B before 12.11.2007 and the application was submitted first, only on 10.9.2011. He contended that the said statement was contrary to facts and in view of Ext.P9, petitioner's contention ought to have been accepted by the Government. He therefore submitted that lawful claim of the petitioner has been rejected and hence she is liable to be appointed with effect from the date of occurrence of the first vacancy after she raised the claim.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the manager submitted that the father of the petitioner died in 1990. Petitioner was born on 12.11.1986 and she attained majority on 11.11.2004. Her first application for appointment was submitted only on 10.09.2011 which was even beyond the extendable time limit. The present manager purchased the school; however no 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 11 information regarding any pending claims was given by the previous manager. The learned counsel submitted that if the case of the petitioner that the managers were refusing to accept her request was correct, she should have approached the authorities of the Education Department immediately. She pointed out that the petitioner approached the Educational Authorities for the first time only in 2012 as evident from Ext.P11. The learned counsel also submitted that the Government considered the issue elaborately and concluded that there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel made extensive reference to Ext.P19 in support of this contention. Learned counsel also pointed out that there are serious discrepancies in the versions of the petitioner regarding the respective dates of the representations claimed to have been presented to the manager. She hence submitted that the petitioner in fact has not submitted any representation to the manager within the time limits stipulated in the relevant Government Order and hence her claim was not liable to be 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 12 accepted. The learned counsel further submitted that the direction issued by the Government in Ext.P19 to appoint the petitioner in the next arising vacancy was illegal and improper. She contended that the Government has no power to issue such a direction after finding that the claim of the petitioner under Rule 51B was untenable.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submitted that the appointment of the 5 th respondent was approved by the District Educational Officer by Ext.R5(d). He pointed out that it is clarified in Rule 51B itself that Government Orders governing compassionate appointment will apply to the appointments under the Rule. The learned counsel referred to paragraph 19 of G.O.(P)No.12/99/P&ARD. dtd. 24.05.1999. The paragraph reads as follows:-
"Time Limit for preferring application
19. The time line for preferring applications under the scheme will be 2 years from the date of death of Government servants. In the case of minor, the period will be within 3 years after attaining majority."
2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 13
10. He hence contended that the last date for submitting application as far as the petitioner was concerned was 11.11.2007. He argued that no application was filed by the petitioner before the said date. The learned counsel invited attention of the Court to Ext.R5(a), a copy of the representation submitted by the petitioner to the manager on 02.11.2016. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner, in page 2 of the representation, stated that she had submitted requests earlier on 10.09.2011 and 22.09.2015. He pointed out that therefore the petitioner had no case in Ext.R5(a) that any request was made prior to 10.09.2011. He contended that the story projected by the petitioner that she had been submitting representations since 2005 was developed only for the purpose of maintaining the claim and in fact no request was made before the crucial date, 11.11.2007. The learned counsel relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shreejith.L. v.
2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 14 Deputy Director (Education), Kerala and others [(2012) 7 SCC 248]. He also relied on judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Manager, Naduvathur U.P.School and Another v. Bijeesh K. and others [2019 (3) KLT SN 10].
11. The learned Government Pleader contended that the Government had analysed the claim of the petitioner properly and concluded that the same was not sustainable. He pointed out that the petitioner has not produced any reliable material at any point of time to show that a request was properly made to the manager before the expiry of the time limit stipulated under the relevant Government Order. He contended that the purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the financial crisis that may follow the death of the employee. Even though the right for compassionate appointment has been recognized under Rule 51B it is not for the purpose of ensuring appointment to the family members of the deceased employee any time. In the case at hand, father of the petitioner expired in 1990. Petitioner 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 15 attained majority much later, in 2004. The first request was made only in the year 2011. Hence, the first application was submitted more than two decades after the death of the father of the petitioner. He hence argued that the Government rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and decided to grant approval to the appointment of the 5 th respondent. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the Government has only directed the manager to consider the petitioner for appointment in the next arising vacancy as a matter of sympathy and no mandatory direction was issued. Hence, he submitted that the relief sought in W.P.(C)No.5990/2019 need not be granted.
12. I have considered the submissions of all parties. The basic dispute is as to whether the petitioner had submitted request to the manager within the time limit provided under the relevant Government Order for appointment under Rule 51B. No doubt, time till 11.11.2007 was available to her as per the Government Order. The learned counsel for the petitioner 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 16 heavily relied on Ext.P9 representation dated 20.04.2009 to contend that the said representation sent by registered post and returned to the petitioner was within the extendable period. He pointed out that the Government was competent to condone the delay in submitting applications for appointment under Rule 51B up to a period of two years from the time limit stipulated under the Government Order dated 24.05.1999, three years after attaining majority. He also contented that even within the time limit as per the G.O., representations were submitted. It is to be noted that there is no proof brought on record to show that the petitioner submitted any request to the manager within the time limit. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the manager, in case the representations submitted within the time limit were not accepted by the manager it was for the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned and point out the same to them. However, petitioner has no case that she approached the authorities of the Educational Department any time before 2011. Even if the contention of the learned counsel 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 17 for the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P9, stated to be returned is assumed as correct, at that point of time also petitioner could have approached the authorities of the Educational Department. It is also to be noted that Ext.P9 was dated 20.04.2009 and condoning the delay in submitting the request is not something which can be claimed as a matter of right.
13. In the above said circumstances it must be held that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner had submitted any proper request to the manager for appointment under Rule 51B within the time limit stipulated under the Government Order dated 24.05.1999.
14. In Shreejith.L.(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
"8. Appointments on compassionate basis are recognised as a permissible mode of induction into service under the Kerala Education Rules, framed under the Kerala Education Act. Rule 9-A appearing in Chapter XXIV-A and Rule 51-B appearing in Chapter XIV-A of the said Rules are relevant in this regard.
2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 18 While Rule 9-A deals with employment of dependants of the non-teaching staff of an aided school dying in harness, Rule 51-B deals with employment of dependants of an aided school teacher dying in harness.
9. The said Rules are as under:
"9-A.The Manager shall give employment to a dependant of the non- teaching staff of an aided school dying in harness. Government orders relating to employment assistance to the dependants of government servants dying in harness shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointment."
(emphasis supplied) "51-B. The Manager shall give employment to a dependant of an aided school teacher dying in harness.
Government orders relating to employment assistance to the dependants of government servants dying in harness shall mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointments."
It is evident from a plain reading of the above that appointments under the statutory rules are further 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 19 regulated by the terms of government orders issued on the subject.
10. The Government Order dated 24-5-1999 is in this regard relevant, for it stipulates the conditions of eligibility including the family income and the category of appointments that can be made under the compassionate scheme. Qualification for the post, age-limit for making appointments and time for filing applications for compassionate appointments are matters regulated by the said order. Para 19 of the Government Order stipulates the period of limitation for preferring applications and may be extracted:
"19.The time-limit for preferring applications under the scheme will be 2 years from the date of death of government servants. In the case of minor, the period will be within 3 years after attaining majority."
11. A conjoint reading of the statutory rules and Para 19 of the Government Order extracted above would show that the compassionate appointment scheme itself permits applications to be made within 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 20 two years from the date of death of the government servant. In the case of minors the permissible period for making applications is three years from the date the minor attains majority. ..................................... ........................................................................
18. There is considerable merit in the contention urged by Mr Rajan. It is not in dispute that Respondent 1 had attained majority on 8-5-1995 whereas the application for compassionate appointment was made on 10-9-2007. This application was, on the face of it, beyond the period stipulated in the scheme for making such a claim. The High Court appears to have confused an application required to be filed within the period stipulated for the purpose with the availability of a vacancy against which such an application could be considered by the Manager. These were two distinctly different matters. What was important was the making of an application for appointment on compassionate basis within the period stipulated for the purpose. Whether or not a vacancy is available had nothing to do with the making of the application itself.
2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 21
19. An application could and indeed ought to have been made by Respondent 1 within the time stipulated, regardless whether there was a vacancy already available or likely to become available in the near or distant future. Respondent 1 having failed to do that, could not claim a compassionate appointment especially when there was nothing on record to suggest that the family was in penury notwithstanding the lapse of a considerable period since the demise of the breadwinner; during which period Respondent 1 had got married and settled down in life and supports a family. The High Court was in that view clearly in error in issuing a mandamus to the Manager to appoint the respondent on compassionate basis which order calls for interference and is hereby reversed."
15. Division Bench of this Court in Manager, Naduvathur UP School (supra) followed the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
16. In view of the law laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted above, the claim of the petitioner is untenable.
2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 22
17. In W.P.(C)No.5990/2019, the grievance of the manager is that the Government directed in Ext.P19 that the petitioner shall be given appointment in the next arising vacancy. Government found that the claim of the petitioner was not tenable. However, evidently out of sympathy some observations were made in Ext.P19 and the manager was directed to consider the petitioner for appointment in the next arising vacancy. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader the Government has not directed to appoint the petitioner. The direction was only to consider her. Propriety of issuing even such a direction is doubtful. However, the same need not be considered as binding on the manager as no authority is available to the government to issue a direction to consider any particular individual for appointment in the next arising vacancy. In view of this observation, no other orders are required in W.P.(C)No.5990/2019.
2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 23 In view of the above discussion, W.P.(C)No.7379/2019 is dismissed and W.P.(C)No.5990/2019 is disposed of.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE skj 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 24 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5990/2019 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 12.6.2018 OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS/1634/2018 DATED 11.1.2019 OF THE AEO, KOYILANDI EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.270/2019/G.EDN DATED 22.1.2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT W.P. (C)No.3237/2012 DATED 21.10.2016 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 25 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7379/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 24.08.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2004 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT DATED 30.09.2015 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 27.09.2017, OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE SRI. K.P.MUHAMMAD SHAJIFF EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.04.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MANAGER EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 20.04.2009 ALONG WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE HEADMASTER OF THE SCHOOL EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER ON 03.09.2012 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF REGISTERED LETTERS SENT BY THE PETITIONER FROM 20.04.2009 TO 11.09.2017 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2025:KER:57064 W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019 26 20.12.2016 SENT BY THE MANAGER EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 05.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 02.01.2013 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE COVER OF THE LETTER SHOWING THE ENDORSEMENT "UNCLAIMED"
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 11.08.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE MANAGER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 12.07.2018 EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY GO(RT) NO.270/19/G.EDN.DATED 22.01.2019 EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO (RT) NO.609/19/G.EDN.DATED 16.02.2019 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R5(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 02.11.2016.
EXHIBIT R5(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.12/99/P&ARD DATED 24.05.1999.
EXHIBIT R5(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN FORM 27.
EXHIBIT R5(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEO, VADAKARA DATED 01.07.2019.
EXHIBIT R5(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.29211/2018 DATED 10.09.2018.