Kerala High Court
C.N.Santhakumari Amma vs The State Of Kerala on 20 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.18494 OF 2009(F)
PETITIONER:
C.N.SANTHAKUMARI AMMA,W/O.N.P.RAJ MOHANAN PILLAI,
AGED 49 YEARS,, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SANSKRIT),,
M.G.M.N.S.S. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,, LAKKATTOOR,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,, TRIVANDRUM.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
5 THE MANAGER,M.G.M.N.S.S. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,,
LAKKATTOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
6 SRI.K.R.VIJAYAN NAIR,M.G.M.N.S.S. HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL,, LAKKATTOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND
R1 BY SRI.AJ. VARGHESE - SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R1 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.VIMAL
R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR. G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2021, ALONG
WITH WP(C).18042/2010(E), THE COURT ON 20-01-2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 & conn.case 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.18042 OF 2010
PETITIONER:
C.N.SANTHAKUMARI AMMA
W/O.N.P.RAJ MOHANAN PILLAI,AGED 49 YEARS,, HIGH SCHOOL
ASSISTANT(SANKRIT),M.G.M.N.S.S.HIGHER, SECONDARY
SCHOOL,LAKKATTOO,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION,
DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
5 THE MANAGERM.G.M.N.S.S.HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL,LAKKATTOO,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
6 SRI.K.R.VIJAYAN NAIRM.G.M.N.S.S.HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL,LAKKATTOOR,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND
R1 BY SRI.A.J. VARGHESE - SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R1 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA
R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2021, ALONG
WITH WP(C).18494/2009(F), THE COURT ON 20-01-2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 & conn.case 3
C.R.
JUDGMENT
[ WP(C).18494/2009, WP(C).18042/2010 ]
Dated this the 20th day of January 2021
Gopinath, J.
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 has been placed before the Division Bench
on account of an order of reference dated 15.3.2018 of a learned Single
Judge of this Court, noticing that there is a conflict of opinion in as much as
the view taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Lalitha v. State
of Kerala; 2008(1)KLT 416 was not followed in Meenakshikutty v.
State of Kerala; 2011 (1) KLT 1032 on the premise that the view taken
in Lalitha (supra) was contrary to the judgment of a Division Bench in
Sreeramachandran v. State of Kerala; 2002 (2) KLT 428. The
learned single Judge noticed the fact that Lalitha's case (supra) was
affirmed (after Meenakshikutty (supra) was decided) by a Division
Bench in W.A.No.2892/2007. The connected Writ Petition, namely,
W.P.(C)No.18042/2010 was also ordered to be tagged along with
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009. It is accordingly that these cases are coming up
before us for adjudication. W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 is the lead case and the
Exhibits referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise indicated, are
referred to as they are marked therein.
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 & conn.case 4
2. The short question that arises for our consideration is whether a
teacher who got the benefit of a Full-Time Teacher in terms of clause (vi) of
G.O.(MS)No.62/73/S.Edn dated 2.5.1973 is also entitled to count the period of
service when they enjoyed the benefits of a Full-Time Teacher for the
purposes of seniority and length of service for promotion as
Headmaster/Headmistress.
3. The writ petitioner is a Postgraduate in Sanskrit with 'Shiksha
Sasthri' (B.Ed). By Ext.P5 order dated 16.11.1994, the petitioner was granted
Full-Time benefits of High School Assistant following the stipulations
contained in G.O.(MS)No.62/73/G.Edn dated 2.5.1973. On 31.3.2008, the
then Headmaster of the School retired from service. Though the petitioner
staked a claim for being appointed as the Headmistress, the Manager
appointed the 6th respondent, who commenced regular service only from
5.6.1995. The District Educational Officer, as well as the Deputy Director of
Education, held, at the instance of the petitioner, that the appointment of the
6th respondent was bad in law. By Ext.P11 order dated 15.6.2009, the
Government, in revision, held as follows:-
"The matter was examined in detail. As per explanation to Rule
44A Chapter XIVA KER, Graduate service means all service of
a teacher as H.S.A., T.S.A, Headmaster of an incomplete H.S.
H.M of a complete UPS/middle school or H.M of a training
school after acquisition of collegiate training such as B.T.L.T or
B.Ed. But in the case of such teachers appointed prior to
15/10/1957, their untrained service after graduation shall also
be reckoned as "Graduate Service", provided that their
appointments were not in accordance with the Madras
Educational Rules. This is not pertained to a part time teacher
enjoying full time benefit but to a full time H.S.A The clause (vi) of
G.O.(MS) 62/73/S.Edn dated 2/5/1973 does not enable conversion
of a part time post to full time. Such a provision in the
Government order is intended to support a part time teacher who
would be continuing for a long period in service and drawing only
the emoluments of a part time teacher or in the other words, the
application of clause (vi) of the G.O said above is only on the basis
of the teachers and not on the basis of the post. If G.O.(MS)
No.62/73/S.Edn dated 2/5/1973 enables conversion of a part time
post to full time it will become contrary to the statutory provision
in Rule 6D Chapter XXIII KER. The G.O. Dated 2/5/1973 has no
over riding effect on rule 6D Chapter XXIII KERs.
In the circumstances stated above, Government find that the
services of Smt. Santhakumari w.e.f. 1/8/1994 to 14/7/05 cannot
be treated as "Graduate Service" for promotion as H.M. Hence the
order of DDE, Kottayam is set aside and Sri. K.R. Vijayan Nair is
eligible to be promoted to H.M of the school."
The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court through
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 challenging Ext.P11 order. The connected Writ
Petition namely, W.P.(C)No.18042/2010 was filed by the petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 challenging an order through which the
Government directed that the appointment of the 6 th respondent as
Principal shall be approved.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions
would contend with reference to Ext.P13, which is a copy of
G.O.(MS)No.62/73/G.Edn. dated 2.5.1973, that once the benefit of Full
Time has been extended to teachers like the petitioner, the entire service
from the date of grant of Full Time benefit has also to be counted towards
seniority/length of service etc., for being considered for promotion as
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 & conn.case 6
Headmaster/Headmistress. It is contended that there is nothing in Rule
44A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, which would prohibit
the counting of such service. It is submitted that the issue stands covered
in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the judgment of this Court in
Meenakshikutty (supra), wherein a learned single Judge, following a
Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sreeramachandran (supra),
distinguished the judgment in Lalitha (supra) and held that the object of
Ext.P13 Government Order is to treat the Teacher granted Full-Time
benefits as a Full-Time Teacher for all intents and purposes including
consideration of such service for appointment as Headmaster/Headmistress.
5. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for
the 6th respondent would however contend that Meenakshikutty
(supra) was decided on 17.2.2011 and that on that date an appeal against
the judgment in Lalitha (supra) was pending before a Division Bench of
this Court as W.A.No.2892/2007. It is submitted that, on 11.4.2012,
W.A.No.2892/2007 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge
in Lalitha (supra) was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court. It is
also submitted that a reading of the judgment of the Division Bench in
Sreeramachandran (supra) shows that this Court has not specifically
considered or answered the question as to whether the period of service
rendered by a Part-Time Teacher to whom the Full-Time benefits were
extended in terms of Ext.P13 Government Order was entitled to count such
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 & conn.case 7
service for consideration for promotion to the post of Headmaster. It is
also submitted that the view taken by the learned single Judge in
Meenakshikutty (supra) that Ext.P13 was issued in exercise of the
powers conferred by Rule 3 of Chapter I of the Kerala Education Rules is
misplaced. Reference is also made to Rule 6D of Chapter XXIII of the
Kerala Education Rules to show that unless there is a minimum of 15
periods per week, there cannot be a Full Time post in respect of a Language
Teacher.
6. We have considered the contentions raised by either side.
7. Lalitha (supra), considered the question also with reference
to the Division Bench judgment in Sreeramachandran (supra). In
paragraph 10 of the judgment in Lalitha (supra), the learned single
Judge held as follows:-
"10. After laying down in R.6 (1) of that Chapter, among other
things, that if the number of periods per week for Sanskrit
language is below 15, there could be one part-time post, R.12 in
Chap.XXIII, K.E.R. obliges staff fixation. The statutory staff
fixation order that could be issued under R.12 has to be in
consonance with the other provisions of the K.E.R. and the Act.
During the relevant time, the distribution of periods in terms of
the curriculum policy framework then in existence was, among
other things, that there has to be four periods for Sanskrit per
week in each class/division. The staff fixation order of the school
in question shows that during the relevant and immediate
previous years, Sanskrit was taught in three standards with one
division each. This means that, applying R.6(1) of Chap. XXIII, the
number of periods per week being 12, that is below 15, there could
be only one part-time post. In terms of R.55 of Chap. XIV A,
K.E.R., the number of permanent teachers under each category in
the staff list of any school or any of the schools under an
educational agency, shall not exceed the aggregate number of
sanctioned posts under that category. The necessary consequence
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 & conn.case 8
of an excess hand would be retrenchment. But, while that rule
may not come into play in the case of Smt.Lalitha, she could have
continued only as a part-time teacher in view of R.6(1) of
Chap.XXIII."
Thereafter, considering the provisions of Ext.P13 Government Order, it was
held thus:-
14. The first sentence of the afore-quoted provision deals with the
application for a particular formula to certain categories of
schools to which such formula was not applied earlier. The
Government also decided that part-time teachers who have put in
more than 5 years of service and have 8 periods of work shall
henceforth be made full-time. The D.P.I. was to examine the
utilisation of the services of those teachers who were the
beneficiaries of that Government Order, for teaching regular
classes and other subjects and giving them adequate work. This
provision was to be effective from the academic year 1973-74. No
statutory amendments were brought to K.E.R., to R.6(1) of
Chap.XXIII, in particular, for the afore-quoted provision to have
any overriding effect on the statutory force of R.6(1) of
Chap.XXIII. This means that any benefit that a part-time teacher
may get by virtue of the second sentence of cl.(vi) of G.O.(M.S.)
62/73 could only inure to that person and not to the part-time post
that is held by that teacher. It would have been essentially
the executive wisdom to provide aid and support to a part-time
teacher who would be continuing for a long period in service
while drawing only emoluments of a part-time teacher. While
G.O.(M.S.)62/73 would enable such a teacher to continue to work
and draw emoluments etc., in terms thereof, no right would
legally accrue in favour of such incumbent to defeat any statutory
right that may be available with any other teacher.
15. In view of the aforesaid, the quality of the post held by
Smt.Lalitha could only be that of a part-time teacher in terms of
the staff fixation order and she could be permitted to continue to
be treated as a full-time hand in terms of G.O.(M.S.) 62/73, This is
exactly what is stated in Ext.R5(e) in W.P.(C).11114/04. As
already noticed, the staff fixation orders do not concede that the
post of the junior Sanskrit teacher in the U.P. School of the
petitioner is a protected post. In law, that could not be. There is
no estoppel against the statute. The statutory authorities,
including the Government,could not have extended to
Smt.Lalitha anything in excess of her statutory entitlements,
at any rate, against the interest of Smt. Mary.
16. The view in the preceding paragraph requires advertence to
the Bench decision of this Court in Sreeramachandran (supra). A
clear understanding of the facts that led to that judgment would
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 & conn.case 9
show that in the staff fixation orders which were considered in
that case, in the column for name of posts, after the word 'Hindi',
it was stated "protected", within brackets. The Bench was,
therefore, of the view that such an entry only means that the post
Hindi teacher is protected in terms of G.O.(M.S.) 62/73. That view
was also fortified by the statements in column 11 of the staff
fixation order dealt with in that case, as is discernible from para
4 of that judgment. In that case, it was stated "one protected post
of F.T. Hindi teacher is sanctioned to give full time benefit to
Sri.Subramanya, Hindi teacher in terms of G..O.
(M.S.)62/73/G.Edn. dated 2.7.73". It was in that context that cl.
(vi) of G..O.(M.S.) 62/73 was read. It was rightly-noticed by the
Bench that the said G..O. does not make any reference to any
protection being given to the teacher and what is provided is for
conversion of an existing part-time post to a full-time post,
subject to certain conditions. The addition of the word 'protection'
by the A.E.O. to the staff fixation order in that case was
deprecated, particularly when the Governmental view favours
the teacher. On the facts and the circumstances of that case, it can
be easily noticed that the decision in Sreeramachandran (supra)
rests exclusively on the facts of that case and I am unable to find
way to apply that as a precedent on a question of law relating to
the interpretation and application of the terms of G.O.(MS)62/73,
which is only an executive order and which cannot run contrary
to, or, in any manner, reduce the rigour of R.6 (1) in Chap. XXIII
K.E.R.
17. Smt.Lalitha, who continued as a full-time teacher on the
strength of Cl. (vi) of G.O.(M.S.) 62/73 had not figured against any
of the posts sanctioned as per the staff fixation orders,
including for the relevant year. Therefore, even if she possesses
the educational qualifications required for a graduate teacher,
she was not a teacher who could have been treated as a member
of the staff of the school, to be within the zone of consideration for
appointment as Headmistress. Therefore, even if a graduate
teacher is to be preferred to an under-graduate teacher in terms
of R.45, Smt.Lalitha was not entitled to get preference over
Smt.Mary in terms of that rule. Not only preference, she was not
entitled to be treated as a "member of the staff" of the school or
the educational agency to be considered for appointment as
Headmistress."
A Division Bench of this Court considering the appeal filed against the
judgment in Lalitha (supra) did not in terms consider the effect of
Ext.P13 Government Order and whether the provisions of Ext.P13 can run
counter to the provisions in the Kerala Education Rules. However, the
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 & conn.case 10
Division Bench upheld the judgment of the learned single Judge in
Lalitha (supra).
8. We have carefully considered the judgment of the Division
Bench in Sreeramachandran (supra). On a reading of the same, we
are of the considered opinion that the finding of the learned single Judge in
Lalitha (supra) that Sreeramachandran (supra) did not, in any
manner, consider the quality of the service rendered by a Part-Time
Teacher, who obtained Full-Time benefits in terms of Ext.P13 Government
Order, is correct in law. Sreeramachandran (supra) as observed by the
learned single Judge in Lalitha (supra) cannot be treated as a
precedent for the purposes of determining the question as to whether the
service rendered by a Part-Time Teacher, who obtained Full-Time benefit
by virtue of the terms contained in Ext.P13, is entitled to count such service
as qualifying service for consideration for promotion to the post of
Headmaster. In the facts of this case, we must notice the specific stand of
the 6th respondent that a Full-Time post of HSA (Sanskrit) was sanctioned
in the School in question only during the academic year 2005-2006. The
Government through its counter affidavit dated 30.10.2020 in
W.P(C)No.18494/2009 has also taken the specific stand that the provisions
of clause (vi) of Ext.P13 Government Order is only intended to support a
Part Time Teacher, who had rendered service for a long time by granting
the emoluments and other benefits of Full Time Teacher and that it was
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 & conn.case 11
never intended to be in derogation of the prescriptions under Rule 6D of
Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules.
9. We are therefore of the opinion that the view taken by the
learned single Judge in Lalitha (supra) as affirmed by the Division
Bench in W.A.No.2892/2007 lays down the correct position in law.
Regarding the quality of service of Part-Time Teachers, who got Full-Time
benefits in terms of Ext.P13 Government Order, we hold that
Meenakshikutty (supra) does not lay down the correct law and that
such service cannot count towards seniority or length of service for being
considered for promotion as Headmaster/Headmistress. We also hold that
Sreeramachandran (supra) is no authority for the proposition that the
entire service from the date on which Full Time benefit was extended to a
Part-Time Teacher is to be counted towards seniority/length of service etc.,
for being considered for promotion as Headmaster. We also hold that
Ext.P13 Government Order (G.O.(MS)No.62/73/S.Edn. dated 2.5.1973) is
not issued in the exercise of power in terms of Rule 3 of Chapter I of the
Kerala Education Rules or in derogation or overriding any statutory
provision. We, therefore, hold that Ext.P13 cannot run counter to express
statutory provisions and therefore, the Teachers, who got Full Time benefit
by virtue of clause (vi) of Ext.p13 Government Order, are not entitled to
count the service rendered as a Part-Time Teacher with Full-Time benefits
towards seniority or as qualifying service for being considered for
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 & conn.case 12
promotion as headmaster/headmistress. We answer the reference
accordingly.
10. In the light of our findings, as above, nothing survives to be
adjudicated in these writ petitions and accordingly we dismiss the writ
petitions finding that Ext.P11 order of the Government in
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 and Ext.P13 order of the Government in
W.P.(C)No.18042/2010 calls for no interference.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 & conn.case 13
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18494/2009
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 24/10/1997.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
PETITIONER DATED25/05/1998.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
PETITIONER DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 12/10/199.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K.DIS.
19544/94/B4 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED
16/11/1994.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF STATEMENT OF THE
CHOOL.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-2852/08/L.DIS
OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED
15/05/2006.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B4-
9997/2008/K.DIS OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION DATED 15/12/2008.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 22/01/2009.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE -DO- PETITIONER DATED
22/01/2009.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.2368/2009/G.EDN.
OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 15/06/2009.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.247/2001/G.EDN. OF
THE GOVERNMENT DATED 03/08/2001.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.62/73/S. EDN. OF
THE GOVERNMENT DATED 02/05/1973.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.50/79/G.EDN. OF
THE GOVERNMENT DATED 29/03/1979.
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 & conn.case 14
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN
2011(1) KLT 1032 DATED 17/02/2011.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D.DIS.4656/04/B3
DATED NIL. OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT R6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-5763/05 DATED
29/10/2005 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT R6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-4763/2007
DATED 08/08/2007 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 & conn.case 15
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18042/2010
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 06/06/2010.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 24/10/1997.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 12/10/1990.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K.DIS.19544/94/B4
OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED 16/11/1994.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF STATEMENT OF THE
SCHOOL.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-2852/08/L.DIS
OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED
15/05/2006.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B4-
9997/2008/K.DIS. OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION DATED 15/12/2008.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 22/01/2009.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE -DO- PETITIONER DATED
22/01/2009.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.2368/2009/G.EDN.
OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 15/06/2009.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE
HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.18494/2009-F DATED
27/10/2009.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.1957/2010/G.EDN.
OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 10/05/2010.
W.P.(C)No.18494/2009 & conn.case 16
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D.DIS.4656/04/B3
DATED NIL. OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT R6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-5763/05 DATED
29/10/2005 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT R6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-4763/2007
DATED 08/08/2007 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.
