Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Satheesh Kumar.K.R on 9 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944
WA NO. 1766 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8767/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 IN WPC:
1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
EDUCATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1,2,6,7,8 & 9 IN
WPC :
1 SANTHOSH.T
AGED 37, S/O SATHYASHEELAN.K,
RESIDING AT KADAVATH HOUSE, PARUTHIPRA P.O,
SHORNUR, PALAKKAD - 679121.
2 SANDEEP.S
AGED 27 YEARS, S/O SASISEKHARAN PILLAI,
RSIDING AT ARAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOTTUVATHALA,
NEDUMUDY P.O, ALAPPUZHA - 688508.
3 SECRETARY, NSS COLLEGES CENTRAL COMMITTEE,
NSS HEAD OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY,
KOTTAYUAM - 686102.
W.A.No.1766 of 2022 & con. Cases -: 2 :-
4 THE PRINCIPAL, SRI VYASA NSS COLLEGE,
WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR - 680623.
5 SUNILKUMAR.A,
S/O A.D.ANANDA PANICKER, AGED 38 YEARS,
OFFICE ASSISTANT, SRI VYASA NSS COLLEGE,
WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR - 680585.
6 SHIBU. K.N
S/O NARAYANAKURUP, AGED 41 YEARS,
OFFICE ASSISTANT, SRI VYASA N.S.S COLLEGE,
WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR - 680585.
7 ASHA NAIR.P.G
W/O ANILKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, OFFICE ASSISTANT,
SRI.VYASA N.S.S COLLEGE, WADAKKANCHERY,
THRISSUR - 680585.
8 GIRISH KUMAR.K.K
S/O KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI, AGED 35 YEARS,
OFFICE ASSISTANT, SRI.VYASA N.S.S COLLEGE,
WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR - 680585.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF (B/O) FOR R1 & R2
K.T.SHYAMKUMAR FOR R5 TO R7
SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R3 & R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2023, ALONG WITH WA.49/2023, 1872/2022, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1766 of 2022 & con. Cases -: 3 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944
WA NO. 1872 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8766/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 IN WPC:
1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
EDUCATION, THRISSUR - 680125.
2 DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHES
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1,2,6,7,8 & 9 IN
WPC :
1 ANUP C, ARUN NIVAS, CHERIYIL, CHERUVALOOR P.O.,
THRISSUR - 680308.
2 SMITHA T
THOZHUKKATE HOUSE, THEKKUMKARA P.O.,
WADAKKANCHERY VIA THRISSUR - 680589.
3 DEEPA. P
EDAMANA HOUSE, CHITIANDA P.O., WADAKKANCHERY,
THRISSUR - 680585.
W.A.No.1766 of 2022 & con. Cases -: 4 :-
4 THE SECRETARY
NSS COLLEGE'S CENTRAL COMMITTEE,
NSS HEAD OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY,
KOTTAYAM - 686102.
5 THE PRINCIPAL
SRI. VYASA NSS COLLEGE, WADAKKANCHERRY,
THRISSUR - 680623.
6 SUNILKUMAR. A,
S/O.A.D ANANDA PANICKER, AGED 38 YEARS,
OFFICE ASSISTANT, SRI.VYASA NSS COLLEGE,
WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR PIN - 680585.
7 SHIBU K.N,
S/O.NARAYANAKURUP, AGED 41 YEARS,
OFFICE ASSISTANT, SRI.VYASA N.S.S COLLEGE,
WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR., PIN - 680585
8 ASHA NAIR P.G
W/O. ANILKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, OFFICE ASSISTANT,
SRI.VYASA N.S.S COLLEGE, WADAKKANCHERY,
THRISSUR., PIN - 680585
9 GIRISH KUMAR. K.K,
S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI, AGED 35 YEARS,
OFFICE ASSISTANT, SRI.VYASA N.S.S COLLEGE,
WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR., PIN - 680585
BY ADVS.
S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF FOR R1 TO R3
P.GOPAL FOR R4 AND R5
B.MURALEEDHARAN
K.T.SHYAMKUMAR FOR R6 TO R9
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2023, ALONG WITH WA.1766/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1766 of 2022 & con. Cases -: 5 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944
WA NO. 49 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1459/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033
3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
EDUCATION, THRISSUR.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 4 & 5
AND ADDL.RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9 IN WPC:
1 SATHEESH KUMAR.K.R., AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O RAMACHANDRAN, LAB ASSISTANT,
SRI. VYASA NSS COLLEGE, VYASAGIRI.P.O.,
VADAKKANCHERYY - 680623.
2 THE SECRETARY, NSS COLLEGE CENTRAL COMMITTEE,
PERUNNA, CHANGANACHERRY - 682101.
3 THE PRINCIPAL
SRI. VYASA NSS COLLEGE, VYASAGIRI.P.O.,
VADAKKANCHERR - 680623.
W.A.No.1766 of 2022 & con. Cases -: 6 :-
4 SUNILKUMAR A, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O A D ANANDA PANICKER, OFFICE ASSISTANT,
SRI. VYSA N S S COLLEGE, WADAKKANCHERRY,
THRISSUR - 680623.
5 SHIBU K N, AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANAKURUP, OFFICE ASSISTANT,
SRI VYASA N S S COLLEGE, WADAKKANCHERRY,
THRISSUR.
6 ASHA NAIR P G, AGED 42 YEARS,
W/O ANILKUMAR, OFFICE ASSISTANT,
SRI. VYASA N S S COLLEGE, WADAKKANCHERRY,
THRISSUR.
7 GIRISH KUMAR K K, AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI, OFFICE ASSISTANT,
SRI. VYSA N S S COLLEGE, WADAKKANCHERRY,
THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
T.P.DEYANANTHAN FOR R1
P.GOPAL FOR R2 AND R3
K.T.SHYAMKUMAR FOR R4 TO R7
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2023, ALONG WITH WA.1766/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1766 of 2022 & con. Cases -: 7 :-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal Nos.1766 & 1872 of 2022
&
49 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2023
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
These appeals are instituted challenging the common
judgment in three writ petitions namely, W.P.(C) Nos.1459 of 2021,
8766 of 2017 and 8767 of 2017. The matter relates to the approval
of the appointment of the petitioners in the writ petitions as
Laboratory Assistants in the service of Sree Vyasa NSS College,
Vadakkancherry, an aided college affiliated to the Calicut University
and covered by the Direct Payment Scheme of the State
Government. As the writ petitions were disposed of by a common
judgment, the appeals are also disposed of by this common
judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment,
unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.1459 of
2021.
2. As per the staff pattern fixed by the Directorate of
Collegiate Education for the College, there are 11 posts of
Laboratory Assistants. In terms of Statute 66 of the Calicut
University (Conditions of Service of the Teachers and Members of
Non-Teaching Staff) First Statutes, 1979 (the Statutes), vacancies in
the higher grades in private colleges are to be filled up by
promotion from the next lower categories, if qualified persons are
available and if not, by direct recruitment, by inviting applications
and conducting a selection as prescribed in the Statutes. As
qualified hands were not available in the service of the College in
the categories next lower to the grade of Laboratory Assistant, the
College resorted to the process of direct recruitment for filling up
the vacancies in the post of Laboratory Assistant. Ext.P5 is the
notification issued by the College in this regard. Thereupon, a
Selection Committee was constituted. Based on the
recommendations of the Selection Committee, a selection was
conducted and the management appointed the petitioners in the
writ petitions as Laboratory Assistants in the College between
09.09.2013 and 07.07.2014.
3. The appointments of the petitioners were however
not approved by the competent authority on the ground that
candidates seeking appointment to the post of Laboratory Assistant
shall have to clear Attenders Test conducted by the Kerala Public
Service Commission in terms of Statute 41(12) of the Statutes. The
Attenders Test being one conducted by the Kerala Public Service
Commission only for in-service Office Attendants of private colleges,
the petitioners took up the matter with the Government for
appropriate orders to absolve them from clearing the Attenders Test.
On the said representation of the petitioners, the Government
directed the Director of Collegiate Education to ascertain whether
the Management has any objection in downgrading the posts of
Laboratory Assistants in which the petitioners were appointed to
Office Attendants for a period of one year so as to accommodate
them in the said post until they complete their period of probation
and then promote them to the post of Laboratory Assistant. The
Management agreed to the said course and consequently, after
receiving a proposal from the Management for the said purpose, the
Government permitted to accommodate the petitioners in the
College as Office Attendants for a period of one year and then as
Laboratory Assistants. Ext.P10 is the communication sent by the
Government in this regard to the Director of Collegiate Education.
Consequent upon the said arrangement, the appointment of the
petitioners were approved initially for a period of one year as Office
Attendants and then as Laboratory Assistants. Even though the
petitioners were appointed during 2013 and 2014, the process
aforesaid was completed only in the month of February and March,
2016 and they have been receiving salary for the period from their
respective dates of appointments only from February and March,
2016.
4. As per the existing rules, Laboratory Assistants need
not have to work during vacations as opposed to Office Attendants.
It appears that a doubt arose later as to whether the petitioners who
have not worked during vacations are entitled to salary for vacation
periods during the first year of their service as they were appointed
during the said period only as Office Attendants. Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)
No.8766 of 2017 is the clarification sought in this regard by the
concerned Deputy Director of Collegiate Education from the Director
of Collegiate Education. Ext.P7 in the said writ petition is the reply to
Ext.P6 notice. In terms of Ext.P7 communication, it was directed that
since the petitioners have not worked during vacation, they are to
be treated as non-vacation staff, indicating that they are not entitled
to vacation salary for the said period. W.P.(C) Nos.8766 of 2017 and
8767 of 2017 were instituted challenging the said decision of the
Director of Collegiate Education. The petitioners therein have also
sought in the said writ petitions a declaration that inasmuch as they
are appointed as Laboratory Assistants, they are entitled to all
service benefits attached to the said post. W.P.(C) No.1459 of 2021
was one instituted almost three years after the institution of W.P.(C)
Nos.8766 of 2017 and 8767 of 2017 challenging Ext.P10 decision of
the Government and for a direction to the respondents to approve
the appointment of the petitioner therein as Laboratory Assistant
with effect from the date of his original appointment and to
regularise his pay and allowances accordingly.
5. The stand taken by the State and the official
respondents in the counter affidavits filed in W.P.(C) Nos.8766 of
2017 and 8767 of 2017 is that inasmuch as the petitioners have
been appointed in the first one year as Office Attendants and they
have not worked during vacations, they are not entitled to vacation
salary during the period in which their appointments were approved
only as Office Attendants. The stand taken by State and the official
respondents in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.1459 of 2021
is that inasmuch as the petitioner therein was not qualified to be
considered for appointment as Laboratory Assistant, he is not
entitled to get his appointment approved as Laboratory Assistant
with effect from the date of his initial appointment.
6. The learned Single Judge took the view that insofar
as Statute 66 enables appointment by direct recruitment to the post
of Laboratory Assistant, the requirement in Statute 41(12) dealing
with the qualification prescribed for appointment to the said post
ought to have been harmoniously read along with Statute 66 and a
method found so as to allow the directly recruited Laboratory
Assistants to obtain the qualifications in due course. Consequently,
the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, quashed
Exts.P10 communication of the State Government and directed that
the petitioners shall be disbursed all consequential monetary
benefits as if they were never downgraded, subject, however, to the
condition that they will clear the Attenders Test within the chance
permissible in terms of Statute 41(12). The State and its officials
and the Director of Collegiate Education are aggrieved by the said
decision of the learned Single Judge and hence, these appeals.
7. Heard the learned Government Pleader, the learned
counsel for the Management as also the learned counsel for the
petitioners in the writ petitions.
8. The learned Government Pleader persuasively argued
that inasmuch as the petitioners have not cleared the Attenders
Test, they were not qualified to be considered for appointment to
the post of Laboratory Assistant in terms of Statute 41(12) and the
course adopted by the Government for approving their
appointments cannot, therefore, be treated as illegal in any manner.
According to the learned Government Pleader, the learned Single
Judge, in the circumstances, ought not have directed the State to
treat the appointments of the petitioners as valid and disburse them
salary and other emoluments accordingly. Alternatively, it was also
argued by the learned Government Pleader that at any rate,
inasmuch as the petitioners have accepted their appointment as
Office Attendants and received pay and emoluments accordingly for
a period of one year, they cannot be heard to contend anymore that
downgrading of the posts in which they were appointed for a period
of one year is bad in law, as the law does not permit a person to
both approbate and reprobate. The learned Government Pleader
relied on the judgments of the Apex court in R.N.Gosain v.
Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683, Punjab & Sind Bank v. S.
Ranveer Singh Bawa, (2004) 4 SCC 484 and Joint Action
Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India v. DG of Civil
Aviation, (2011) 5 SCC 435, in support of the said propositions.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Management
of the College and the learned counsel for the petitioners supported
the decision of the learned Single Judge contending that the
requirement to have the Attenders Test cleared in terms of Statute
41(12) for direct recruitment to the post of Laboratory Assistant is a
requirement which is impossible of compliance inasmuch as the
Public Service Commission is not conducting the said test for
candidates aspiring appointment to the post of Laboratory Assistant
by direct recruitment. According to them, it is on account of the said
reason that the learned Single Judge has interpreted the statutory
provision aforesaid in the manner indicated in the impugned
judgment and the same cannot be said to be illegal in any manner.
They have also brought to the notice of this Court the proviso to
Statute 41(12) which permits the last grade staff in regular
permanent service of private colleges to be appointed by promotion
without clearing the Attenders Test subject to the condition that
they should clear Attenders Test in one of the five consecutive
Attenders Test conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission
for the last grade staff of private colleges, to contend that if
appointment by promotion is permissible without clearing Attenders
Test, there is no reason why the appointment by direct recruitment
cannot be permitted without clearing Attenders Test, especially
when it is impossible for a candidate aspiring appointment by direct
recruitment to clear the Attenders Test. It was pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that in light of the interpretation
given to the provision by the learned Single Judge, the petitioners
are entitled to the reliefs granted to them in the writ petitions and
there is no reason for this court to interfere in the said decision of
the learned Single Judge.
10. We have examined the arguments advanced the
learned counsel for the parties on either side.
11. There is no dispute to the fact that in terms of
Statute 66, appointment to the post of Laboratory Assistant in
private colleges by direct recruitment is permissible if qualified
hands are not available for promotion in the next lower categories.
The fact that the petitioners do possess all the qualifications
required to be considered for appointment to the post of Laboratory
Assistant by direct recruitment except the clearance of Attenders
Test is not in dispute. The fact that it is impossible for a candidate
aspiring appointment to the post of Laboratory Assistant in private
colleges by direct recruitment to clear Attenders Test is also not in
dispute. Similarly, there is also no dispute to the fact that the
proviso to Statute 41(12) permits the last grade staff in regular
permanent service of private colleges to be appointed by promotion
without clearing the Attenders Test subject to the condition that
they should clear the test in one of the five consecutive Attenders
Tests conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission for the last
grade staff of private colleges. It is in the said circumstances, the
Government has evolved a via media to downgrade the post of
Laboratory Assistants in which the petitioners were appointed as
Office Attendants for a period of one year so that the petitioners
could be promoted after one year to the post of Laboratory
Assistants without clearing Attenders Test by extending to them the
benefit of the proviso to Statute 41(12). It is seen that it is having
regard to the fact that it is impossible for a candidate aspiring
appointment to the post of Laboratory Assistant in private colleges
by direct recruitment to clear Attenders Test and the fact that the
proviso to Statute 41(12) permits the last grade staff in regular
permanent service of private colleges to be appointed by promotion
without clearing the Attenders Test, subject to the condition that
they should clear the test in one of the five consecutive Attenders
Tests conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission, the
learned Single Judge took the view that Statute 41(12) requires to
be interpreted harmoniously with Statute 66 and the only conclusion
that could be arrived at by giving such an interpretation is to hold
that the appointment can be made without insisting clearance of
Attenders Test and the appointees need to clear the Attenders Test
only as permitted in the proviso to Statute 41(12). It is fundamental
that the law does not compel an impossible act. Inasmuch as the
requirement in Statute 41(12) to clear Attenders Test for
appointment to the post of Laboratory Assistants by direct
recruitment is an impossible one, we are unable to find fault with
the learned Single Judge for having interpreted the provision in the
manner indicated in the judgment, or otherwise, the statute will not
be workable [See Sanjay Ramdas Patil v. Sanjay, (2021) 10 SCC
306]. In other words, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by
the learned Single Judge that the appointment of the petitioners as
Laboratory Assistants are in order. The argument advanced by the
learned Government Pleader that the petitioners were not qualified
to be considered for appointment as Laboratory Assistants, in the
circumstances, is liable to be rejected.
12. The materials on record would indicate that in
furtherance to a communication sent by the Government on
21.10.2014 (Annexure A4 in the appeals), the Management of the
College submitted a proposal (Annexure A5 in the appeals) for
downgrading the posts of Laboratory Assistants in which the
petitioners were appointed, for a period of one year and it is by
accepting the said proposal that the Government issued Ext.P10
order. The materials also indicate that pursuant to Ext.P10 order,
the petitioners have been appointed as Office Attendants by the
Management on 23.06.2015 with effect from their respective dates
of original appointments and they were promoted later as
Laboratory Assistants after a period of one year, after declaring
their probation in the post of Office Attendants. No doubt, it is a
case where the petitioners have accepted the course adopted by
the Management and the Directorate of Collegiate Education and
received pay and emoluments accordingly. It is thereafter that they
have approached this court for a declaration that their original
appointments were in order, and for consequential benefits. The
question is whether in a situation of this nature, the petitioners can
be said to be approbating and reprobating.
13. It is well settled that the law does not permit a
person to approbate and reprobate. In other words, a person who
maintained the stand that a transaction is valid for obtaining a
benefit, cannot maintain the stand that the transaction is void, for
obtaining another benefit. This rule is one evolved and applied to do
equity. As far as the case on hand is concerned, in light of the
interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to Statute 41(12) as
accepted by this Court, the petitioners were entitled to get their
appointments approved with effect from their initial dates of
appointments. As it is inequitable to deny the petitioners the
benefits which they are legitimately entitled to, merely for the
reason that they have received the pay and emoluments based on
the decision of the Government, the aim of equity being not to
frustrate legitimate rights, according to us, the principle aforesaid
cannot be applied to the facts of this case. The argument advanced
by the learned Government Pleader in this regard is also therefore,
liable to be rejected and we do so.
In the circumstances, the appeals are devoid of merits
and are accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE.
ds 03.02.2023
APPENDIX OF WA 49/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF PHOTOCOPY
OF THE MERCY PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS ON 21.07.2017.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER
MADE BY THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR
FOREST, ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTATION,
SPORTS AND CINEMA TO THE HONOURABLE
MINISTER FOR EDUCATION
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE
DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION TO
THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (HIGHER
EDUCATION (D) DEPARTMENT) LETTER NO.
E4/37107/2014/COLL.EDN DATED
20.09.2014
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
LETTER NO.32065/D3/14/HR.EDN DATED
21.10.2014
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.H.806/2014 DATED 14.02.2015.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM
GOVERNMENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION LETTER
NO.32065/D3/14/H.EDN DATED 31.05.2015
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H/3822/2014
DATED 23.06.2015
APPENDIX OF WA 1872/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOCOPY OF THE MERCY
PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS
ON 21.07.2014.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER
MADE BY THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR
FOREST, ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTATION,
SPORTS AND CINEMA TO THE HONOURABLE
MINISTER FOR EDUCATION
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE
DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION TO
THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (HIGHER
EDUCATION (D) DEPARTMENT) LETTER NO.
E4/37107/2014/COLL.EDN DATED
20.09.2014
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
LETTER NO.32065/D3/14/HR.EDN DATED
21.10.2014 ADDRESSED
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THEPROCEEDINGS
NO.H.806/2014 DATED 14.02.2015.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM
GOVERNMENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION LETTER
NO.32065/D3/14/H.EDN DATED 31.05.2015
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H/3822/2014
DATED 23.06.2015
APPENDIX OF WA 1766/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOCOPY OF THE MERCY
PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS
ON 21.07.2017
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER
MADE BY THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR
FOREST, ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTATION,
SPORTS, AND CINEMA TO THE HONOURABLE
MINISTER FOR EDUCATION
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE
ADDITIONAL CHEIF SECRETARY (HIGHER
EDUCATION (D) DEPARTMENT) TO THE
DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
LETTER NO.E4/37107/2014/COLL.EDN DATED
20.09.2014
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
LETTER NO.32065/D3/14/HR.EDN DATED
21.10.2014
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.H.806/2014 DATED 14.02.2015 WITH
TYPED COPY
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM
GOVERNMENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION LETTER
NO.32065/D3/14/H.EDN DATED 31.05.2015
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H/3822/2014
DATED 23.06.2015
