Kerala High Court
Annie Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018(W)
PETITIONER:
ANNIE JOSEPH
AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.MOHAN P.KURIAN,
PANAKKAMUTTAT GRACE VILLA,
KADAPRA-MANNAR.P.O.,
NIRANAM,
THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.689 621.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR
SRI.RAJU GEORGE (KARUVATTA)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.689 601.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
THIRUVALLA.689 101.
5 RACHEL ABRAHAM
THEVERIL HOUSE,
KIZHAKKUMBAGHAM.P.O.,
NIRANAM WEST, THIRUVALLA.689 101.
6 PROF. C.A.CHACKO
ROSEMOUNT, NEAR MUNICIPAL BUS STAND,
THIRUVALLA.689 101.
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
2
R1, R5 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RISHIKESH HARIDAS
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SHIJIN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).15552/2011(T),
WP(C).7171/2018(V), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.15552 OF 2011
PETITIONERS:
1 RACHEL ABRAHAM AND ANOTHER, THEVERIL HOUSE
KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM.P.O,, NIRANAM WEST, THIRUVALLA.
WORKING AS HEADMISTRESS OF KADAPRA, ST. THOMAS
HIGH SCHOOL.
2 PROF. C.A. CHACKO ROSE MOUNT
NEAR MUNICIPAL BUS STAND, THIRUVALLA,,
FUNCTIONING AS MANAGER, ST. THOMAS SCHOOL,,
NIRANAM WEST, KADAPRA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.HARIDAS
SMT.S.SIKKY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC, INSTRUCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 601.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
THIRUVALLA - 689 601.
5 SMT. ANNIE JOSEPH HSA
ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL, NIRANAM WEST,, KADAPRA -
689 692.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).7171/2018(V),
WP(C).8589/2018(W), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.7171 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
RACHEL ABRAHAM
W/O OOMMMEN VARGHESE
NOW WORKING AS HEADMISTRESS
ST.THOMAS H.S. NIRANAM WEST,
RESIDING AT THEVERIL,
KIZHKKUM BHAGAM P.O.
NIRANAM,THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
PIN-689 621
BY ADVS.
SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE
SRI.P.HARIDAS
SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVT.SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695001
2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA-689 101
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
THIRUVALLA. PIN-689 101
4 ANNIE JOSEPH
AGED 57, W/O MOHAN.P.KURIAN,
PANAKKAMUTTATHU GRACE VILLA,
KADAPRA, MANNAR P.O.,
NIRANAM, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689621.
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
6
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R1 BY ADV. ADV. AMALA.J.RAJ
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.GOKUL BABU
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYANT
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJU GEORGE KARUVATTA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).15552/2011(T),
WP(C).8589/2018(W), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
7
JUDGMENT
[ WP(C).8589/2018, WP(C).15552/2011, WP(C).7171/2018 ]
Dated this the 28th day of January 2021
Rival and opposing claims made by Smt.Rachel Abraham
and Smt.Annie Joseph, who were both working as High School
Teachers in "St.Thomas Higher Secondary School," Niranam,
Pathanamthitta had led to these writ petitions - which are being
considered together on account of the interlayered facts and
circumstances involved - to be filed.
2. I do not propose to speak in detail on the facts
involved in these cases because, it is conceded by the learned
counsel for the parties that pending this lis, both Smt.Rachel
Abraham and Smt.Annie Joseph retired from service and all that
now remains to be decided is whether the appointment granted by
the Manager of the School to Smt.Rachel Abraham on 27.4.2007
overlooking the seniority of Smt.Annie joseph, is illegal or
otherwise.
3. Before I move forward, one thing has to be borne
in mind, namely, that the Educational Institution is admitted to be
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
enjoying minority status, which has been confirmed by a learned
Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in W.A. No.1500/2015
and connected matters. This is relevant because, at the time when
this writ petition was filed, there was a dispute as to whether the
school could be construed to be a minority educational institution,
which has been finally settled by this Court through the afore
judgment on 20.6.2019.
4. Thus, when the school is now concededly a
minority educational institution, it is well settled through the
judgments of the Honorable Supreme Court in N.Ammad v.
Manager, Emjay High School [(1998)6 SCC 674] and The
Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew &
Others [(2017)15 SCC 595] that they are entitled to choose
their head without being governed by the rigour of seniority under
Rule 44(1) Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), but
on condition that they follow a fair and transparent procedure for
making such selection, based on merit.
5. The obligation of the Management to follow a fair
and transparent procedure has also been now reinstated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.D.Rafique v. Managing Committee,
Contai Rahamania High Madrasah and others [(2020) 6SCC
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
689] and therefore, what remains for this Court to verify is
whether the appointment of Smt.Rachel Abraham was made by the
Manager following such procedure.
6. Among the three writ petitions that I am
considering today, W.P.(C) Nos.15552/2011 and 7171/2018 have
been filed by Smt.Rachel Abraham; while W.P.(C) No.8589/2018
has been filed by Smt.Annie Joseph.
7. The reason why the aforesaid writ petitions came
to be filed is that, when Rachel Abraham was appointed by the
Manager on 27.4.2007, her approval was rejected by the Deputy
Director of Education saying that seniority of Smt.Annie Joseph had
been illegally overlooked. This led to Smt.Rachel Abraham to
approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17352/2007, which was
disposed of directing that the statutory appeal filed by her be
considered - which finally led to - proceedings before the various
Educational Authorities, in their hierarchy under the KER, finally
culminating in an order dated 30.5.2011, which is produced as
Ext.P16 (hereinafter referred to as the "Order of Rejection") in
W.P.(C) No.15552/2011.
8. Through the "Order of Rejection," the Government
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
held that appointment of Smt.Rachel Abraham by the Manager is
incorrect, since the seniority of Smt.Annie Joseph had been
overlooked, especially because, in doing so, the Manager had not
adopted a fair or transparent procedure, as had been mandated by
a full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lissie vs State of Kerala
[2006 (4)KLT 264 (FB)]. The Government also stated that the
Manager did not produce any document to show that such
procedure had been followed and consequently directed the District
Educational Officer, Thiruvalla (DEO) to approve the appointment of
Smt.Annie Joseph, making it clear that she will be eligible for
salary of the Headmistress for the period she actually worked.
9. The "Order of Rejection" has been challenged by
Smt.Rachal Abraham through her writ petitions; while Smt.Annie
Joseph has filed W.P.(C) No.8589/2018 seeking that same be
implemented.
10. I have heard Sri.Chandrasekharan Nair, learned
counsel appearing for Smt.Annie Joseph; Sri.P.Haridas, learned
counsel appearing for Smt.Rachel Abraham and the learned Senior
Government Pleader, Sri.P.M.Manoj for the official respondents in
all these cases.
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
11. As I have stated in the prefatory paragraphs of this
judgment, the pertinent question for my consideration is whether
appointment of Smt.Rachel Abraham, overlooking the seniority of
Smt.Annie Joseph, had been made validly by the Manager and
whether he had followed a fair, transparent and merit based
procedure. This is imperatively relevant because if the Manager had
followed such procedure, then, obviously, appointment of
Smt. Rachel Abraham cannot found fault with since, as is now well
settled, in the cases of minority education institutions, they are
entitled to appoint a person as their Head without having to follow
the Principles of Seniority as per the applicable Rules and
Regulations.
12. That being so in the impugned "Order of Rejection"
Government found the appointment of Smt.Rachel Abraham to be
incompetent, since no documents had been produced by the
Manager before it to show that he had followed a fair, transparent
or merit based procedure. The contention of Smt. Annie Joseph is
that no such procedure had been followed and that the Manager
had, in fact, unilaterally created a Bye-law - a copy of which is on
record as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No.8589/2018 - and effected the
appointment of Smt.Rachel Abraham as per its terms, asserting
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
that same is invalid and illegal because it has not obtained the
concurrence or approval of the Educational Agency.
13. However, interestingly, in the counter pleadings
filed by Smt. Annie Joseph she does not specifically say that no
selection process had been conducted by the manager and this
assumes importance in this case because the minutes of a
Selection Committee constituted by the Manager of the School has
been produced as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.15552/2011. The said
minutes of the Selection Committee shows that they had
interviewed both Smt. Annie Joseph and Smt.Rachel Abraham and
had granted 29 marks to the former and 34 marks to the latter.
Smt. Annie Joseph does not challenge these proceedings nor does
she say that the marks granted to her is incorrect, but that it has
been done by the Committee in an illegal manner and on the basis
of a Bye-law which had not been approved by the Educational
Agency. To add to the above, Sri. Chandrasekharan Nair learned
counsel for Smt.Annie Joseph, submits that these documents have
no legal validity, since, they were not produced before the
competent Educational Authority by the Manager. However, this
submission would obtain no real relevance because, as I have
already said above, Smt. Annie Joseph does not have a case that
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
she was not subjected to an interview process, as has been
recorded in Ext. P6 minutes.
14. Hence, what is now incumbent upon this Court is
to verify whether the process, as claimed by the Manager, which is
reflected in Ext.P3 minutes produced along with W.P.(C)
No.15552/2011, can find favour in law and whether this Court will
be justified in examining it, since they were not produced before
the Government when the impugn "Order of Rejection" had been
issued.
15. The minutes of the Selection Committee namely
Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.15552/2011, shows that its meetings were
conducted on 14.4.2007 and 20.4.2007; and that Smt. Annie
Joseph and Smt. Rachel Abraham had been interviewed by them.
The Minutes also shows that, the Committee consisted of the
Present Manager, Former Manager and the outgoing Headmaster
and that after analysing the performance of two candidates in the
interview, Smt.Annie Joseph was granted 29 marks and
Smt. Rachel Abraham 34 marks. Obviously, therefore, Smt. Rachel
Abraham was found to be more meritorious than Smt. Annie
Joseph and resultantly, the Manager offered her appointment as
the Headmistress of the School.
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
16. The contention of Smt. Annie Joseph is that,
though she was subjected to such an interview, the said process
cannot be construed to be sufficient to override her higher
statutory claim for being appointed as the Headmistress based on
the conceded seniority, because said process is not fair, transparent
or merit based. She fortifies her contentions by saying that since
the process was held on the basis of the Bye-laws prepared by the
Manager unilaterally, without the concurrence of the Educational
Agency, it cannot have legs to stand in law.
17. When I consider the afore contentions, it is
indubitable that when the Manager had constituted a Selection
Committee and when Smt. Annie Joseph had participated in the
selection process without challenging the manner of selection or
constitution of the said committee, she cannot now turn around
and say that said process was not properly conducted, merely
because the Bye-laws had not been prepared by the Educational
Agency in terms of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Lissie
Kurian (supra). I am afraid that this contention would have no
favour in law on account of the subsequent judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ammad (supra) and James Mathew
(supra), wherein, it has been postulated without doubt that
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
minority educational institutions can choose a Head of their own,
without having to follow the rigour seniority.
18. However, it is also without doubt that the
Honourable Supreme Court has clarified that when such a process
is taken forward, it should be fair, transparent and merit based.
19. Coming to the case at hand, going by the Minutes
of the Selection Committee, I cannot find that the procedure they
followed was not merit-based because both the teachers were
interviewed by a panel and they were allotted marks as have been
recorded therein.
20. As I have said above, Smt.Annie Joseph does not
challenge the Minutes of the Committee, nor does she challenge
the marks awarded to her; but she solely alleges that the process
is bad on account of the fact that it was conducted on the basis of
the Bye-law prepared by the Manager. I am afraid that this
contention cannot impress me because, as per the Minutes of the
Selection Committee, the procedure adopted by them was based on
an evaluation of the merits of the rival candidates and Smt.Rachael
Abraham had scored higher marks than Smt.Annie Joseph.
21. This is particularly because, even when I pointedly
asked Sri.Chandrasekharan Nair whether his client had participated
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
in the interview, he was unable to offer any answer, but
reiteratingly said that the Minutes of the meeting is manipulated, it
not having been produced before the Educational Authorities.
22. I cannot, therefore, grant imprimatur to the
contentions of Sri.Chandrasekharan Nair, made on behalf of
Smt.Annie Joseph, that the process was not merit-based or that it
is vitiated in law.
23. When I so conclude, it becomes obvious that the
'Order of Rejection' issued by the Government cannot obtain
sanction in law, since what is stated therein is that the Manager
had not produced the relevant records to show that the selection
procedure was transparent and merit based. It may be true that
the Manager did not produce the Minutes of the Selection
Committee Meeting or their proceedings before the Government or
the Educational Authorities, but since they are available before this
Court and since Smt.Annie Joseph does not challenge it per se,
except saying that the process has been done based on an invalid
Bye-law, I do not deem it necessary that the matter be remanded
to the Government for a fresh consideration, particularly when both
teachers have now retired on attaining the age of superannuation
and further since Smt.Annie Joseph has not worked even for one
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
day as the Headmistress during the pendency of these cases.
In the afore circumstances, I allow W.P.
(C)No.15552/2011 and W.P.(C)No.7171/2018, setting aside
Government Order dated 30.05.2011 (which is Ext.P16 in
WP(C)No.15552/2011); with a consequential direction to the
jurisdictional District Educational Officer to grant approval to the
appointment of the petitioner-Smt.Rachel Abraham with effect from
01.05.2007, along with all consequential and necessary service
and pensionary benefits being disbursed to her, as expeditiously as
is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment.
Consequentially, W.P.(C)No.8589/2018 will stand
dismissed.
After I dictated this judgment, Sri.S.Chandrasekharan
Nair - learned counsel for Smt.Annie Joseph, submitted that since
his client was incapacitated from working as the Headmistress on
account of no fault of hers, this Court may direct the Educational
Authorities to refix her pension, construing that she was eligible to
be so appointed.
I am afraid that I cannot accede to this contention since
I have already found that appointment of Smt.Rachel Abraham was
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
not in error and obviously, therefore, Smt.Annie Joseph cannot
even seek that she should be construed to have worked as the
Headmistress, when she did not factually do so even for one day.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SMF/RR
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8589/2018
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/4053/07
DATED 04.06.2007 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST AS ON
31.07.1999 OF THE ST.THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL,
KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.ET3/56098/2010/DPI/K.D DATED
03.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE
G.O(RT)NO.1974/2011/G.EDN. DATED
30.05.2011 ISSUED BY GENERAL
EDUCATION(A)DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2017
OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WPC
NO.15552/2011.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 12.2.2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 12.2.2018.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 22.2.2018.
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15552/2011
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(RT)NO.
1230/2005/G.EDN. DATED 28/03/2005.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAW DATED
26/02/2007.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 05/03/2007.
EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BIO DATA SUBMITTED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 05/03/2007.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 05/03/2007.
EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BIO DATA SUBMITTED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 05/03/2007.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
KADAPRA ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL NIRANAM
DATED 14/04/2007.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION
COMMITTEE DATED 20/04/2007.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.
MG.APT./2007/03 DATED 27/04/2007.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED
16/04/2007 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
MANAGER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
18/07/2007.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
19/06/2007 IN WPC NO.17352/2007 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-9982/2004
DATED 27/09/2007 ISSUED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B4-
4304/07/K.DIS. DATED 03/01/2008 ISSUED BY
4TH RESPONDENT.
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
ET3/57098/2010/DPI/K./DIS. OF DPI DATED
03/09/2010.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 18/09/2010.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
19/10/2010 WPC NO.30140/2010 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO(RT)
NO.1974/2011/G.EDN. DATED 30/05/2011.
EXHIBIT P19 (1). TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 21/05/2007. (2)TRUE COPY
OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WA
NO.1500/2015, WA NO. 1586/2015, WA
NO.1624/2015 AND WA NO.2060/2012 DATED
20/06/2019.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 31/03/2005 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/06/2007
OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
THIRUVALLA.
EXHIBIT R5(C) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19/06/2007 IN
WPC NO.16451/2007.
EXHIBIT R5(D) TRUE COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTE DATED
22/01/2011 OF 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT R5 (E) THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 17.06.2020
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 & connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7171/2018
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.
(RT)NO.1230/2005/G.EDN.DATED 28.3.2005
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 27.4.2007
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
07.11.2014 IN WPC NO.7695/2007 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
23.10.2017 IN WPC NO.15552/2011 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.01.2018 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
08.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE
PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE PROPOSAL OF
FIXATION DATED 05.02.2018 TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.2.2018
RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.B4/9634/2017/D.DIS DATED 23.07.2018 OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
