Priyadarsini S vs State Of Kerala Represented By The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 666 Ker

                                                                           CR
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

           FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

                          WP(C).No.22171 OF 2020(V)


PETITIONER:

                PRIYADARSINI S, AGED 49 YEARS, VOCATIONAL TEACHER IN
                CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE, KARAVARAM VOCATIONAL
                HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALLAMBALAM P.O,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695605.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
                SMT.N.SANTHA
                SRI.V.VARGHESE
                SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
                SRI.S.A.ANAND
                SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
                SMT.K.N.REMYA
                SHRI.VISHNU V.K.
                KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
                SHRI.KURUVILLA SABU CHRISTY

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014.

3 SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION (VHSE WING), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014.

4 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM PIN-691008.

5 MANAGER, KARAVARAM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALLAMBALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695605.

6 SINDHU B, NON-VOCATIONAL TEACHER IN ENGLISH, KARAVARAM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALLAMBALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695605.

7 S. HARIHARAN PILLAI, NON-VOCATIONAL TEACHER IN COMMERCE, KARAVARAM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALLAMBALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695605.

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN BY ADV. SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI P M MANOJ, (GP)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).22198/2020(Y), WP(C).23044/2020(E), WP(C).27668/2020(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

WP(C).No.22198 OF 2020(Y)

PETITIONER:

S.HARIHARAN PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE SANKARA PILLAI, NON-VOCATIONAL SENIOR TEACHER IN COMMERCE, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARAVARAM, RESIDING AT VILAYIL VEEDU, NAVAIKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695603.

BY ADVS.

SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.ANIL K.NAIR SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN SHRI.THAYYIB SHA P.S. SMT.A.APARNA KAIMAL

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (SC) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOUSING BOARD COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR, FIRE FORCE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KATTAKADA, KOLLAM-691008.

4 SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION (VHSE WING), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

5 VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARAVARAM, KALLAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695605, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

6 SINDHU B., AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. SRI.UDAYAKUMAR, NON VOCATIONAL TEACHER (ENGLISH), VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARAVARAM, KALLAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695605.

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.M.MANOJ-GP

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).22171/2020(V), WP(C).23044/2020(E), WP(C).27668/2020(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

WP(C).No.23044 OF 2020(E)

PETITIONER:

SINDHU B., AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. SHRI.UDAYAKUMAR.T., NON VOCATIONAL TEACHER (ENGLISH), VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (VHSS), KARAVARAM, KALLAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 605 AND RESIDING AT ASWATHY, KARAMCODE P.O., CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM-691 579

BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION (SC) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOUSING BOARD COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR, FIRE FORCE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM-691 008

4 VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARAVARAM, KALLAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 605 REP. BY ITS MANAGER

5 SMT.PRIYADARSHINI.S., VOCATIONAL TEACHER IN CIVIL, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE (IN SHORT CCM), VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARAVARAM, KALLAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 605

6 SMT.GIRIJA.A.S., NON VOCATIONAL TEACHER IN PHYSICS , VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL , KARAVARAM, KALLAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 605

7 SMT.HARIHARAN PILLAI.S., NON VOCATIONAL TEACHER IN PHYSICS, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARAVARAM, KALLAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 605

8 SHRI.MANESH VARGHESE, VOCATIONAL TEACHER IN T AND T., NON VOCATIONAL TEACHER IN PHYSICS, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARAVARAM, KALLAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 605

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA BY ADV. SRI.V.V.VARGHESE BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND BY ADV. SMT.K.N.REMYA BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA BY ADV. SHRI.VISHNU V.K.

BY ADV. KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY BY ADV. SHRI.KURUVILLA SABU CHRISTY BY ADV. SRI P. M MANOJ, (GP)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).22171/2020(V), WP(C).22198/2020(Y), WP(C).27668/2020(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

WP(C).No.27668 OF 2020(G)

PETITIONER:

MANAGER, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KARAVARAM, KALLAMBALAM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 605.

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (SC) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOUSING BOARD COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR, FIRE FORCE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KATTAKADA, KOLLAM - 691008.

4 SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION (VHSE WING), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

5 SMT.SINDHU B., AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. SRI. UDAYAKUMAR, NON VOCATIONAL TEACHER (ENGLISH), VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARAVARAM, KALLAMBALAM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 605.

6 S. HARIHARAN PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE SANKARA PILLAI, NON - VOCATIONAL SENIOR TEACHER IN COMMERCE, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARAVARAM, RESIDING AT VILAYIL VEEDU, NAVAIKULAM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 603.

SRI.P.M.MANOJ -GP

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).22171/2020(V), WP(C).22198/2020(Y), WP(C).23044/2020(E), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CR

J UDGMENT

Competing and opposing claims to the post of Principal/

Administrative Head of the Vocational Higher Secondary

School, Karavaram, has led to these writ petitions being filed;

with one of the main issues posed being: if a teacher, who has

been on leave for more than a decade continuously, would still

be eligible to stake a claim to such appointment.

2. Among the four writ petitions, W.P.(C)No.

22171/2020 has been filed by Smt.Priyadarsini S; W.P.(C)No.

22198/2020 has been filed by Sri.S.Hariharan Pillai; W.P.(C)

No.23044/2020 has been filed by Smt.Sindhu B. and W.P.(C)

No.27668/2020 has been filed by the Manager of the School.

3. Compendiously, the facts without dispute are that

Smt.Priyadarsini was appointed as a Vocational Teacher in the

School on 01.12.1995; while Sri.Hariharan Pillai was appointed

as a Non Vocational Teacher on 03.02.1997. Before

Sri.Hariharan Pillai had been so appointed, Smt.Sindhu was

appointed as a Non Vocational Teacher (Part-Time) in the

School with effect from 29.01.1996 and she asserts that she

became a Non Vocational Teacher with effect from 01.07.1996.

4. While so, Smt.Priyadarsini took Leave Without

Allowance (LWA) under the provisions of Appendix XIIA and

XIIC of Part-I of the Kerala Service Rules ('KSR' for short) for

the period from 09.08.2004 to 08.03.2018 and rejoined on

09.03.2018.

5. Subsequent to the rejoining of Smt.Priyadarsini, the

vacancy of the Administrative Head/Principal of the School

arose on 01.06.2020 and all the three aforementioned Teachers

laid a claim to the same. The Manager of the School, however,

appointed Sri.Hariharan Pillai as the 'Principal-in-charge' of the

School, through order dated 01.06.2020, a copy of which is on

record as Ext.P6(a) in W.P.(C)No.22198/2020.

6. Smt.Sindhu, thereupon, laid a claim to be appointed

to such vacancy in preference to Sri.Hariharan Pillai, based on

the seniority list of Teachers in the School for the year 2017 - a

copy of which is on record as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.23044/2020,

wherein, she had been shown to be senior to Sri.Hariharan

Pillai. Pertinently, Smt.Priyadarsini was not included therein

because she was continuing on LWA at that time.

7. The Manager, however, in the meanwhile, appears to

have revised the seniority list and published a new one for the

year 2018, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P15 along

with W.P(C)No. 23044/2020.

8. In this Seniority List, Smt.Priyadarsini is shown to be

senior to both Sri.Hariharan Pillai and Smt.Sindhu and

Sri.Hariharan Pillai has been shown to be senior to Smt.Sindhu,

citing the reason that she became a Non Vocational Teacher

only with effect from 05.08.1997. Smt.Sindhu, being aggrieved,

approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.4046/2020, in which

operation of the said List had been initially stayed.

9. However, pending the said lis, the Manager

appointed Sri.Hariharan Pillai as the Principal of the School

and this was brought to the notice of this Court by Smt.Sindhu

in W.P.(C)No.4046/2020.

10. As a result, W.P.(C)No.4046/2020 was disposed of by

this Court through judgment dated 15.07.2020, in the following

manner:

"The dispute in this writ petition is with respect to the

seniority and eligibility for appointment as Principal.

2. The petitioner, who is a Non-Vocational teacher in English claims that she is senior and entitled to be promoted as Principal.

3. At the same time, the 8th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that he is the teacher, eligible for appointment as Principal.

4. The petitioner challenges Ext.P15 seniority list on the ground that the same is prepared in violation of the judgments of this Court and also without referring to the settled seniority.

5. The party respondents have filed counter affidavits and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. Along with I.A. No.4/2020, petitioner has produced Ext.P27 appeal submitted before the 2nd respondent challenging the seniority list. As the issue is to be decided at the 1 st instance by the department after hearing, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the claims raised by the rival parties. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P27 appeal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondents 4 to 8 and any other teacher, who is likely to be affected, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Till such time, status quo shall be maintained. "

11. Based on the afore directions of this Court, the

Director of General Education (DGE) heard the parties, finally

issuing an order dated 28.09.2020, wherein, he held that

Smt.Sindhu is entitled to be reckoned as senior to Sri.Hariharan

Pillai; while Smt.Priyadarsini was found not eligible to be

promoted as the Principal or Administrative Head of the School

on account of the fact that she had been on LWA for more than

thirteen and half years (this order will hereinafter be referred as

the 'order of the DGE').

12. This order has been challenged by Sri.Hariharan Pillai

in W.P.(C)No.22198/2020 as also by the Manager of the School in

W.P.(C)No.27668/2020 and by Smt.Priyadarsini in W.P.(C)No.

22171/2020; while Smt.Sindhu has filed W.P.(C)No.23044/2020

to have the same order implemented.

13. I have heard Sri.N.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel

appearing for Smt.Sindhu; Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned counsel

appearing for Sri.Hariharan Pillai; Sri.V.Varghese, learned

counsel appearing for Smt.Priyadarsini; Sri.K.B.Arun Kumar,

learned counsel appearing for the Manager of the School and

Sri.P.M.Manoj, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on

behalf of the State of Kerala and Educational Authorities.

14. As is luculent from the afore epigrammatic narration

of facts, the essential questions before this Court are whether:

a) Smt.Priyadarshini, who is conceded to be the senior most

among all the Teachers, would be entitled to be appointed as the

Administrative Head/Principal in spite of the fact that she was on

LWA from 09.08.2004 to 08.03.2018 and;

(b) whether Sri.Hariharan Pillai can stake to be senior to

Smt.Sindhu, because he was initially appointed as a Non

Vocational Teacher; while the latter was initially appointed only

as a Non Vocational Teacher (Part-Time).

15. I propose to consider the first issue initially because, if

Smt.Priyadarsini is found eligible to be appointed as the

Administrative Head/Principal of the School, then the other two

writ petitions would become unnecessary of consideration, since

Sri.Hariharan Pillai and Smt.Sindhu are concededly juniors to

her, reckoning their initial date of joining.

16. Sri.V.Varghese, learned counsel for Smt.Priyadarsini,

relied upon Rule 4 of Appendix XIIC Part--I of the KSR to assert

that Teachers who are granted LWA will loose their service

benefits, including earning of leave, increment, gratuity, pension,

etc., and also to the promotion chances only during and for the

currency of the period of leave. Sri.V.Varghese, therefore,

asserted that since his client had rejoined duty on 09.03.2018

and since the post of Principal became vacant in the School only

on 01.06.2020, she is entitled to be considered for such post,

notwithstanding with the fact that she was on LWA from

09.08.2004 to 08.03.2018.

17. Sri.Varghese relied upon the judgment of a learned

Division Bench of this Court in Nirmaladevi v. State of Kerala

and Others [2010 (1) KLT 16] in support of his above

contention, pointing out that it has been held without doubt

therein that a Teacher will not lose seniority during the period of

leave and that she/he will become entitled for promotion to the

vacancy which arose after the leave period.

18. In opposition to this, Sri.Unnikrishnan, learned

counsel appearing for Smt.Sindhu, submitted that since the

Special Rules for Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education

State Services, 2004 have not yet been made applicable to the

aided sector, the provisions of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala

Education Rules (KER) ought to govern the appointment of

Principal. He showed me that, going by Rule 6 Chapter XXXII of

the KER, only the Teachers who have continuous teaching

experience of twelve years would be eligible to be appointed as

the Principal.

19. As an alternative contention, Sri.Unnikrishnan

submitted that, going by the judgments of the learned Full

Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and others v.

M.M.Thomas and others [2015 (1) KHC 502] and Shaji

Sanjayi Nottithodi v. Managing Director, Kerala State

Transport Corporation and others [2017 (3) KHC 631], all

service benefits that a person would obtain while in service

would be lost when he/she rejoins after the period of LWA and

that this has been rendered cystally clear by this Court. He,

therefore, prayed that the 'order of the DGE' be directed to be

implemented forthwith and his client be ordered to be appointed

as the Administrative Head/Principal of the School in question

forthwith.

20. When I consider the syllogistic submissions of the

learned counsel on this aspect, it is without any reason for doubt

that Rule 4 Appendix XIIC of the KSR renders it unmistakable

that an officer on LWA will lose service benefits, including leave,

increment, gratuity, pension etc., as also promotion chances 'for

and during the currency of the period of leave'.

Sri.V.Varghese submits that this can only mean that when the

Teacher rejoins duty and a promotion vacancy arises thereafter,

he/she will also be eligible to be considered for such post.

21. That said, as regards the contention of Sri.Varghese

based on Nirmaladevi (supra) is concerned, it is doubtless that

the learned Division Bench of this Court has held that since the

vacancy to the post of Headmaster did not arise during the

period when the Teacher was on leave, she was entitled to be

considered for promotion subsequently, since she would not lose

seniority on account of her having proceeded on such leave.

22. However, it must be borne in mind that Nirmaladevi

(supra) was delivered in the year 2009, while the aforementioned

Full Bench Judgments were delivered much later, in the years

2015 and 2017 respectively.

23. That apart, in Nirmaladevi (supra), what was being

interpreted was Rules 37 and 56 Chapter XIVA of the KER,

which, concededly, have no application to the facts of this case

or to the service involved herein.

24. The promotion to the post of Principal in the School in

question is governed by the Government Order dated

19.01.2012, a copy of which has been appended as Ext.P11 in

W.P.(C)No.23044/2020, wherein, it has been postulated that the

senior most Vocational or Non Vocational Teacher will be

appointed as the Administrative Head/Principal.

25. Therefore, what is indubitable is that the Government

recognizes the seniority of a Teacher to act as the Administrative

Head/Principal of the School and consequently, the experience

garnered by the said Teacher for discharging the duties of the

said post effectively. The tenor of the Government Order is very

clear that only that teachers who has had more experience than

the other teachers in the School would be entitled to be

appointed as the Principal and going by the said precept,

Smt.Priyadarsini would lose all chances of being posted as the

Administrative Head of the School, since she was, admittedly, on

LWA for more than 13½ years.

26. Thus, even though the argument of Sri.V.Varghese

would sound strong from the touchstone of Appendix XIIC Part-I

of the KSR, the declarations of this Court in M.M.Thomas

(supra) and Shaji Sanjayi Nottithodi (supra) would cast a large

amount of cloud on the same. This is because, after considering

the provisions of grant of LWA in detail, the Full Bench declared

ut infra in M.M.Thomas (supra):

"53. When no increment is admissible for such period under leave without allowances, there is no question of grant of any benefit towards the period during which a teacher served another employer in a foreign country. There can be no addition to his pay towards such period of absence. Therefore the period during which the teachers of Private Colleges did not discharge their duties in the respective Colleges or in other words while they were serving another employer in another country and remained on leave without allowances for that purpose, even in the absence of any provision for the same, which does not count for increments, can in no manner be reckoned towards placement as Senior Grade Lecturer, Selection Grade Lecturer, etc.

54. Just because the orders implementing UGC Scheme provide for placement on completion of the stipulated number of years of service, or because the orders issued by the educational agencies granting them leave did not contain any restrictions or the consequences, the Private College Teachers cannot be given a further incentive for the period they served a foreign employer on their own will and pleasure, without considering the purpose for which placement is given. The UGC scheme was introduced only in the year 1990. The orders granting leave to the teachers were issued was officiating at the time he proceeded on leave or deputation and would have continued to officiate but for his proceeding on leave or deputation."

27. Subsequently, in the year 2017, in Shaji Sanjayi

Nottithodi (supra), the learned Full Bench reiterated these

aspects in paragraph No.13 thereof, which is reproduced below

for ease of reference:

"13. Coming to the issue relating to cadre promotion, there cannot be any dispute to the fact that generally

grade promotion provides monetary incentives without raising the rank of the employee, whereas the cadre promotion not only provides for monetary incentives but also raises the rank of the employee. The recruitment rules which are produced by the Corporation in W.A.No.1128 of 2015 indicate that only the incumbents in the highest grade of the feeder category are entitled to be considered for cadre promotion to supervisory posts. Since the period spend by an incument on Leave Without Allowances is not liable to be reckoned as qualifying service for grade promotions, on rejoining duty, he is not entiled to be promoted to the grade of cadre where his immediate junior has reached in the meanwhile, though he is notionally promoted to that grade along with his junior. Notional promotion is given to the senior, as stated above, only to maintain the same sequence of ranking in the promoted post as in the lower post, for whatever it is worth and he is entitled to promotion to that grade only on acquiring the requisite qualifying service. The question, therefore, is, whether the senior can be considered as a person who has reached the appropriate grade merely on account of the notional promotion secured by him so as to claim cadre promotion in preference to his junior. In this context, the view taken by the Division Bench in Abdul Razak (supra), assumes relevance. In the said case, the issue that arose for consideration was whether a Government servant who rejoins duty after availing Leave Without Allowances for taking up employment abroad is entitled to the benefit of grade promotion which his immediate junior has acquired in the meanwhile on the strength of the seniority protected in terms of Rule 4 of Appendix XIIA of Part I KSR. The Division Bench had answered the said issue in the negative holding that a person may retain his position of seniority for whatever it is worth and the same does not automatically lead to a presumption that he is to be deemed as having rendered service all through out. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment read thus:-

'6. That a person may retain his position of seniority for whatever it is worth does not automatically lead to a presumption that he is to be deemed as having rendered service all throughout.

Conferment of grade promotion is for ensuring that stagnation is avoided and disgruntlement does not result. After rendering service for a specified period in a post, an officer is deemed to have come over to the higher grade. The absence of a higher post itself is immaterial for giving such benefit. In respect of persons, who are able to secure promotion, benefit of grade promotions is not admissible. Thus the benefit is introduced with clear insight.

7. R.88 as also R.110(b) of Part 1 K.S.R. prescribe that Leave Without Allowances could be availed of when no other leave is admissible to the officer. Also when the officer applies for the grant of Leave Without Allowances, it may be available. Naturally, it has to be presumed that the officer is aware of the possibility of set backs in his service, as he is voluntarily keeping away from service. There is no case for the appellant that he had been deputed to any public sector enterprise. He had voluntarily availed of leave for employment abroad. It will not therefore be justifiable on his part to contend that notwithstanding all these he will be entitled, to grade promotion, as if a bonanza for having joined Government service. He was never in public employment during such period and had nor suffered stagnation, as is normally understood. The wordings of Rule 4 of Appendix XII-A are sufficiently clear to show that the benefit might not have been admissible to such an officer. These, we find, are sufficient reasons to reject the contentions urged."

28. That apart, as rightly stated by Sri.N.Unnikrishnan,

the provisions relating to the promotion to the post of Principal in

Aided Higher Secondary Schools are governed by Rule 6 Chapter

XXXII of the KER. As per this provision, only a teacher with a

minimum of twelve years of continuous teaching experience at

the Higher Secondary level would obtain the entitlement to be

considered for promotion to the post of Principal of a Higher

Secondary School.

29. That being so noticed, it must be borne in mind that the

Special Rules for Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education

State Service, 2004 have not been made applicable to the Aided

Sector yet, and hence, the provisions of Rule 6 Chapter XXXII of

the KER certainly provide an insight into the manner in which

the Administrative Head of Vocational Higher Secondary Schools

will have to be chosen, though it is not applicable to it strictly.

30. In the case at hand, even though Smt.Priyadarsini

was appointed as a Vocational Teacher on 01.12.1995, in less

than nine years she applied for LWA on 09.08.2004 and

continued to be on such status until 08.03.2018. Therefore, for

the period from 1995 to the present, Smt.Priyadarsini was on

LWA for over thirteen and half years; while Sri.Hariharan Pillai

and Smt.Sindhu were on continuous service from the date of

their initial appointments.

31. Therefore, if Smt.Priyadarsini is chosen to be the

Principal of the School, it will lead to an absolutely anachronistic

situation that a teacher with much less teaching experience than

the others and who had gone abroad on her own volition is so

appointed, merely on the basis of his/her date of initial

appointment.

32. It is here that Rule 6 Chapter XXXII of the KER would

provide guiding light because, it mandates a particular teaching

experience as the eligibility for being appointed as the Principal;

while the aforementioned Government Order, with respect to the

appointment of Administrative Head/Principal in Vocational

Higher Secondary Schools, gives priority to seniority, which, in

normal parlance, can only mean longest teaching experience

among the candidates. The importance of having sufficient

teaching experience can never be lost sight of, since on the

Head/Principal would depend the reputation, discipline and

efficiency of teaching in a School/College.

33. The famous words of Justice K.K.Mathew in the Nine

Judge Bench judgment in Ahmedabad St.Xaviers College

Society & anr. etc. v. State of Gujarat & anr. (1975 (1) SCR

173) is so true even this day that: 'it is upon the principal and

teachers of a college that the tone and temper of an educational

institution depend'.

34. The unmissable importance of the post has also been

spoken about by the Chief Justice M.S.Menon, who, in Aldo

Maria Patroni v. E.C.Kesavan & ors. (1964 KLT 791), wrote in

his inimitable style: 'the post of the headmaster is of pivotal

importance in the life of a school. Around him wheels the tone

and temper of the institution; on him depends the continuity of

its traditions, the maintenance of discipline and the efficiency of

its teaching.'

35. Hence, the mere fact that Smt.Priyadarsini was

appointed in 1995, ahead of both Sri.Hariharan Pillai and

Smt.Sindhu, would be of little consequence because, she,

admittedly, was on LWA and thus not discharging her duties as a

teacher from 09.08.2004 to 08.03.2018. She, however, stakes

claim to be appointed as the Administrative Head/Principal of the

School merely because the vacancy in the said post arose on

01.06.2020, after she joined duty on 09.03.2018. I cannot find

favour with Smt.Priyadarsini on this issue and am of the firm

opinion that the DGE has not erred in finding her to be not

eligible to be appointed as the Administrative Head/Principal of

the School in question.

36. Once the first issue is so answered, the second issue

will necessarily require to be considered in detail.

37. The contention of Sri.Hariharan Pillai, as urged by his

learned counsel, Sri.Thomas Abraham, is that he was appointed

as a Non Vocational Teacher on 03.02.1997; while Smt.Sindhu

was appointed as a Non Vocational Teacher (Part-Time) on

29.01.1996. He asserts that Smt.Sindhu became a Non

Vocational Teacher (NVT) only on 05.08.1997, when she was

allotted 24 hours of workload and, therefore, that she is junior to

him, thus he being entitled to be appointed as the Administrative

Head/Principal of the School.

38. Sri.Thomas Abraham fortified his afore submissions by

asserting that the seniority list prepared by the Manager for the

year 2018, namely Ext.P15 in W.P.(C)No.23044/2020, has been

validly framed taking note of all relevant facts and therefore,

contended that the DGE has erred in having issued the impugned

order. He, therefore, prays that W.P.(C)No.22198/2020 be

allowed and his client be permitted to function as the Principal of

the School without any interdiction.

39. The afore submissions of Sri.Thomas Abraham was

supported by Sri.K.B.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for

the Manager, who also maintained that Smt.Sindhu cannot seek

seniority over Sri.Hariharan Pillai, since she can be construed to

have been promoted as a Non Vocational Teacher only with

effect from 05.08.1997; while Sri.Hariharan Pillai had been

appointed in such post on 03.02.1997. Sri.K.B.Arun Kumar added

that his client was only acting in obedience to the directions and

holdings of a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.

1423/2012, wherein, it has been affirmed that it is the date of

entry in the cadre of Vocational or Non Vocational Teacher that

would be relevant for the purpose of seniority and that the period

spent by him/her as a Non Vocational Teacher (Junior) or

Vocational Teacher (Junior) would not count for such purpose.

Sri.K.B.Arun Kumar, therefore, prayed that W.P.(C)No.

27668/2020 be allowed and Sri.Hariharan Pillai be permitted to

continue as the Principal of the School.

40. When I evaluatingly weigh the afore submissions,

there can be little doubt that if Smt.Sindhu continued as a Non

Vocational Teacher (Part-Time) until 05.08.1997, then

Sri.Hariharan Pillai would certainly be entitled to claim seniority

over her.

41. The cardinal question is whether this is factually so.

42. It is admitted that Smt.Sindhu was appointed as a Non

Vocational Teacher (Part-Time) in English on 29.01.1996,

through an order issued by the Manager, a copy of which is on

record as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.23044/2020. The Manager asserts

that she continued in such capacity until 05.08.1997, when she

became a Non Vocational Teacher on account of 24 hours of

workload being allotted to her.

43. However, these assertions of the Manager and that of

Sri.Hariharan Pillai lose its legs to stand on, when one examines

the order of the Government dated 20.09.1996 - produced as

Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.23044/2020 - wherein, along with various

other Teachers of the School, Smt.Sindhu B was also reappointed

as a Non Vocational Teacher in English with effect from

01.17.1996, on a Pay Scale of Rs.2000-3200.

44. This has great relevance in this case because,

Smt.Sindhu had been regularized in service as a Non Vocational

Teacher (Part-Time) through Government Order dated

18.08.2002 - a copy of which is marked as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.

23044/2020 - with effect from 29.01.1996, after her broken spells

of service had been reckoned.

45. Further, as per Ext.P9 Government Order dated

23.08.2004, produced along with W.P.(C)No.23044/2020, it was

clarified that the Pay Scale of Rs.2000-3200 (pre-revised) was the

one allotted to Non Vocational Teachers with effect from

08.06.1992, irrespective of the fact that their service commenced

in the Junior Scale or otherwise.

46. Apodictically, therefore, when Smt.Sindhu had been

allotted the Pay Scale of Rs.2000-3200 and reappointed as a Non

Vocational Lecturer in English, through Government Order dated

20.09.1996 (Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.23044/2020), it becomes

incumbent upon the Manager to explain why he has construed

her to be a Non Vocational Teacher only with effect from

05.08.1997.

47. I, therefore, asked Sri.K.B.Arun Kumar, as to whether

there are any materials or pleadings on record to substantiate his

client's stand that Smt.Sindhu should be reckoned as being a

Non Vocational Teacher only from 05.08.1997, but he was unable

to point out any.

48. However, Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned counsel

appearing for Sri.Hariharan Pillai, submitted that, as per the

then extant circulars and orders, only a Teacher who had a

minimum of 18 hours of workload could have been construed as a

Non Vocational Teacher and that since Smt.Sindhu herself

admits that she had only 12 hours of work with effect from

01.07.1996, she could not have been reckoned as a Non

Vocational Teacher from that date.

49. This submission, I am afraid, cannot appeal to me at

all, because, in Ext.P3, Smt.Sindhu has been appointed as a Non

Vocational Teacher in English with effect from 01.07.1996 and

was granted the scale applicable to such post, as sanctioned by

the Government through order dated 23.08.2004 (Ext.P9 in W.P.

(C)No.23044/2020). Therefore, irrespective of whether

Smt.Sindhu was engaged for 18 hours or less with effect from

01.07.1996, she, certainly, is entitled to be considered as a Non

Vocational Teacher with effect from that date, going by the terms

of her re-appointment, as is available from the aforementioned

Government Order.

50. I must also record that the argument of Sri.Hariharan

Pillai and the Manager of the School that Smt.Sindhu can be

treated to have become a Non Vocational Teacher when she was

allotted 24 hours of duty is fought with great danger because

there is nothing on record to indicate that Sri.Hariharan Pillai

had such hours allotted to him, when he was initially appointed.

His pleadings or that of the Manager are wholly silent on this

and no material has been produced to show that only a teacher

with such hours could be treated as being a Non Vocational

Teacher. This is relevant because Smt.Priyadarsini has no such

case and her counsel Sri.Varghese expressly admits that he does

not impel such a contention.

51. Moving on, the further submissions of Sri.Thomas

Abraham, based on the Special Rules applicable to Vocational

Higher Secondary Education, would be of no avail because: the

said Rules have not yet been made applicable to the Aided Sector

even as on date, much less when Smt.Sindhu had been given re-

appointment as a Non Vocational Teacher in the year 1996.

52. Finally, coming to the merits of the 'order of the DGE'

impugned by Sri.Hariharan Pillai, Smt.Priyadarsini and the

Manager of the School and which is sought to be implemented by

Smt.Sindhu, I notice that the DGE has considered all these

aspects and found that Smt.Priyadarsini is not entitled to be

considered for promotion on account of her long spell of LWA;

while Smt.Sindhu has been found to be senior to Sri.Hariharan

Pillai.

53. I cannot, therefore, find anything wrong with this

order and am certainly obligated to grant an imprimatur to it as

per law.

In the afore circumstances, I allow W.P.(C)No.23044/2020

and dismiss W.P.(C)Nos.22171/2020, 22198/2020 and

27668/2020; consequentially directing the Manager to issue

fresh orders appointing Smt.Sindhu as the Administrative Head/

Principal of the School in question forthwith.

The Educational Authorities are further directed to ensure

that the Manager appoints Smt.Sindhu in terms of this judgment

and that the order of the DGE dated 28.09.2020 is implemented

in its letter and spirit without any avoidable delay.

SD/-

                                           DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

rp                                                    JUDGE




                         APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22171/2020

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO E3/12268/95 DATED

29.02.1996 OF THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE G O (Rt) NO.2441/04/GL.EDN DATED 07.08.2004.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GO.(RT0 NO.3434/06/GL,EDN DATED 05.08.2006

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (RT) NO.4175/2009/GI,EDN DATED 07.10.2009.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF NO E3/9320-2014 DATED 12.08.2014 OF THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF TEACHERS OF KARAVARAM VHSS, KALLAMBALAM FOR THE YEAR 2018.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.01.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURES.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.05.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURES.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.05.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURES.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.05.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURES.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2020 IN WP(C0 NO.4046/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.08.2020 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO E3/3318/2020 DATED 20.08.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED HEARING NOTE FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL.

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E3/3318/2020 DATED 28.09.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.GEDN-

F3/190/2018-GEDN DATED 29.10.2018.

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.06.2020 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURES.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R6(A) A TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST OF KARAVAM VHSS, KALLAMBALAM(VHSS SECTION)2017

EXHIBIT R6(B) ORDER DATED 22.8.2016 IN RP NO 1125/2012 IN WA NO 1424/2012

EXHIBIT R6(C) A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 31.5.2020 FILED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT R6(D) A TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SERVICE AND PARYOLL ADMIISTRATIVE RESPOSITORY (SPARK) FOR KERALA EMPLOYMENT DATA SHEET

EXHIBIT R6(E) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO L1/1949/2002 DATED 18.8.2002 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT R6(F) A TRUE COPY OF COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF DETAILS OF TEACHERS(VHS SECTION) 2019 IN THE KARAVARAM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SWCHOOL, KALLAMBALAM

EXHIBIT R6(G) A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.4.2017 IN WPC NO 19500/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES

EXHIBIT R6(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.6.2012 IN TA NO 3014/2012

EXHIBIT R6(I) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO E3/3318/2020 DATED 28.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT R6(J) A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 22.10.2020 FILED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT OFFICE BY ADVOCATE KILIMANOOR SREEKUMAR.B

EXHIBIT R6(K) A TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER NO E3/4959/2020 DATED 23.10.2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22198/2020

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF TEACHERS DATED 16.7.2018 IN VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARAVARAM.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR NO.L1/1949/2002 DATED 18.8.2002.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.L1/4731/2019 DATED 1.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED1.6.2020 SENT BY THE MANAGER, KARAVARAM VHSS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT SEEKING APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION GIVEN BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN ADDITION TO EXHIBIT P4.

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.7.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.4046 OF 2020.

EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DATED 28.9.2020.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R6(A) A TRUE COPY SENIORITY LIST OF KARAVAM VHSS, KALLAMBALAM (VHSS SECTION) 2017.

EXHIBIT R6(B) A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 29.01.1996 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R6(C) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E3/12268/95 DATED 29.02.1996 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, VHSE.

EXHIBIT R6(D) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E3/2268/96 DATED 20.09.1996.

EXHIBIT R6(E) A TRUE COPY OF SPARK EMPLOYEE DATA SHEET DETAILS.

EXHIBIT R6(F) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.L1/1949/2002 DATED 18.08.2002 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R6(G) A TRUE COPY OF COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF DETAILS OF TEACHERS (V.H.S.SECTION) 2019 IN THE SCHOOL.

EXHIBIT R6(H) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.08.2016 IN R.P NO.1125/2012 IN W.A NO.1424/2012.

EXHIBIT R6(I) A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2017 IN W.P(C) NO.19500/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES.

EXHIBIT R6(J) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.06.2012 IN T.A NO.3014/2012.

EXHIBIT R6(K) A TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST OF THE TEACHERS OF KARAVARAM VHSS, KALLAMBALAM (VHSS SECTION -2018.

EXHIBIT R6(L) A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 30.07.2019 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.5.

EXHIBIT R6(M) A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL PETITION DATED 24.11.2019 FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R6(N) A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO. 4046/2020 DATED 15.07.2020.

EXHIBIT R6(O) A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 22.10.2020 FILED BY ADVOCATE SREEKUMAR.

EXHIBIT R6(P) A TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER NO. E3/4959/2020 DATED 23.10.2020.

EXHIBIT R6(Q) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E3/3318/2020 DATED 28.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R6(R) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.10.2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R6(S) A TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.2019/2018/G. EDN. DATED 31.05.2018.

EXHIBIT R6(T) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. G.EDN.F3/190/2018-

G.EDN.DATED 29.10.2018.

EXHIBIT R6(U) A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 19.10.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R5(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.8.2009 ISSUED BY THE DPI.

EXHIBIT R5(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS DATED 22.9.2009 ISSUED BY THE DEO.

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23044/2020

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 29.01.1996 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL, 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E3/12268/95 DATED 29.02.1996 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, VHSE

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E3/2268/96 DATED 20.09.1996

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SERVICE AND PAYROLL ADMINISTRATIVE REPOSITORY (SPARK) FOR KERALA EMPLOYMENT DATA SHEET

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.L1/1949/2002 DATED 18.08.20O2 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST OF KARAVARAM VHSS, KALLAMBALAM (VHSS SECTION)-2017

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF DETAILS OF TEACHERS (VHS SECTION) 2009 IN THE KARAVARAM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALLAMBALAM

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.990/2001/G.EDN DATED 15.03.2001

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.E3/10147/2003 DATED 23.08.2004

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.2495/04/GL EDN DATED 17.06.2004

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) NO.18/2012/G.EDN DATED 19.01.2012

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.08.2016 IN RP NO.1125/.2012 I WA NO.1424/2012

EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2017 IN WPC NO 19500 AND CONNECTED CASES

EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.06.2012 IN TA NO.3014/2012

EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST OF THE TEACHERS OF KARAVARAM VHSS, KALLAMBALAM(VHSS SECTION) -2018

EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 30.07.2019 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.4

EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL PETITION DATED 24.11.2019 FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL

EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST OF 2019-20

EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 31.05.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2020 OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.4046/2020 DATED 15.07.2020

EXHIBIT P22 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E3/3318/2020 DATED 28.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P23 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.10.2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P24 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.G.EDN .F3/1980/2018/G.EDN DATED 29.10.2018

EXHIBIT P25 A TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.2019/2018/G.EDN DATED 31.05.2018

EXHIBIT P26 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 19.10.2020

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R4(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.8.2009 ISSUED BY THE DPI.

EXHIBIT R4(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS DATED 22.9.2009 ISSUED BY THE DEO.

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27668/2020

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.4046/2020.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DATED 28.09.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR NO.L1/1949/2002 DATED 18.08.2002.