Kerala High Court
A. Chandrasekhar vs State Of Kerala on 26 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
PETITIONER :-
A.CHANDRASEKHAR, AGED 48 YEARS
PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE,
SREE KRISHNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NALLEPPILLY,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 553.
BY ADVS.
P.M.PAREETH
AISWARYA VENUGOPAL
NAJEEB P.S
RESPONDENTS :-
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION, B-2 BLOCK, CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM - 676 505.
4 MANAGER
SREE KRISHNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NALLEPPILLY,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 553.
5 SMT.R.SREEJA
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (SOCIOLOGY)
SREE KRISHNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NALLEPPILLY,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 553.
6 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM - 682 026.
BY ADVS.
V.A Muhammed
ANISON M R
P.A.RINUSA(K/000379/2009)
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
-: 2 :-
P.A.JENZIA(K/598/2003)
SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.09.2023, THE COURT ON 26.10.2023 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
-: 3 :-
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.40821 of 2022
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2023
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(1) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or
order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P13 and
quash the same.
(2) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or
order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P15 and
quash the same to the extent it grants approval to the fifth
respondent as HSST notionally from 23-02-2013 to 24-02-
2013 and regularly from 25-02-2013 onwards as illegal
and arbitrary and unsustainable.
(3) A declaration to the effect that the fifth respondent being
unqualified for appointment to the post of HSST (Junior)
as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy viz.24-10-2011
and having obtained her degree recognized by the
University of Kerala only from 25-02-2012 is entitled to
hold the post of HSST (Junior) only from that date and
Exhibit P12 is legally valid.
(4) A direction to the 3rd respondent to approve the
appointment of the petitioner as Principal with effect from
1/06/2018 as evidenced by Exhibit P1 and to grant him all
consequential benefits within a time frame."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and the
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent as well as the
learned Government Pleader.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as
HSST (Junior) on 1.12.2011. The interview by the selection
committee for selection of the HSST/HSST (Junior) was
conducted on 27.11.2011. The petitioner and the 5th
respondent and others participated in the selection process.
The 5th respondent, who, according to the petitioner, was not
qualified for appointment, was also included in the list for by
transfer appointment as HSST (Junior). Thereafter, both the
petitioner and the 5th respondent were appointed as HSST. The
petitioner was appointed on 23.2.2013 and his appointment
was approved. The 5th respondent's date of appointment was
25.2.2013 and the said appointment was also approved.
However, the 5th respondent challenged the appointment of the
petitioner as HSST with effect from 23.2.2013 and the 5 th
respondent's own appointment only from 25.2.2013. By
Ext.P15 proceedings dated 30.3.2019, the 3rd respondent
Regional Deputy Director modified the date of appointment of
the 5th respondent as 23.2.2013. As a matter of fact, the period
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
from 23.2.2013 to 24.2.2013 was treated as notional and from
25.2.2013 onwards as regular. Thereafter, Ext.P13 order
dated 31.10.2022 was passed by the Government deciding the
issue of claim for promotion as Principal in the Higher
Secondary School in favour of the 5th respondent on the ground
that the 5th respondent is senior to the petitioner. The said
orders are under challenge in this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the 5th respondent was a person who had acquired M.A. in
Sociology by Distance Education from the Sree Venkateswara
University and that the said qualification was recognized by
the University of Kerala only on 22.5.2012 and therefore, she
would be entitled to approval as HSST (Junior) only from
22.5.2012. It is, therefore, contended that since the 5 th
respondent was junior to the petitioner both in the cadre of
HSST (Junior) and HSST and since the date of appointment of
the 5th respondent as HSST was corrected only by an illegal
proceedings as evidenced by Ext.P15 in the year 2019, the
petitioner was entitled to appointment as Principal in
preference to the 5th respondent. It is, therefore, contended
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
that Exts.P13 and P15 orders which grant benefits to the 5 th
respondent in terms of the principles in Rule 37 of Chapter
XIVA KER are absolutely erroneous and are liable to be set
aside.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance
on a decision of this Court in Rajeswari Devi S. v. State of
Kerala [2023 (2) KHC 589] to contend that this Court as well
as the Apex Court has repeatedly held that Rule 37(2) of
Chapter XIVA KER has no application for deciding seniority of
teachers appointed in Higher Secondary Schools. Paragraph
21 of the said judgment reads as follows :-
"21. Therefore the well recognised canon of service
jurisprudence for determining inter-se seniority of members of
the same service is to be followed. If the date of appointment of
two rival candidates are the same, the seniority has to be decided
based on the age of the rival candidates. In this case admittedly
the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9671/2022 is senior in age
considering the age of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7070/2022.
Therefore, without relying on Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV(A) of
KER, the general service jurisprudence is to be followed for
deciding seniority. Hence the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9671/2022
is the senior compared to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7070/2022.
Therefore there is nothing to interfere with the impugned orders
in W.P.(C) No.7070/2022."
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
6. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on
record by the 5th respondent. It is contended that the 5th
respondent was initially appointed as HSA in the 4 th
respondent's school from 17.8.1998 while the petitioner was
appointed as HSA only long thereafter, that is, on 9.6.2001.
They were both appointed as HSST (Junior) on the same date,
that is, with effect from 1.12.2011 and their appointments
stand approved. Appointment to the post of HSST, though
were simultaneous, the petitioner's appointment was with
effect from 23.2.2013 and the 5th respondent's was with effect
from 25.2.2013. The said appointments were approved on
3.12.2013. On 18.12.2013 itself, the 5th respondent challenged
the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 23.2.2013
before the 3rd respondent, which was returned directing the 5th
respondent to approach the 2nd respondent. Immediately
thereafter, the 5th respondent approached the 2nd respondent.
It is in the meanwhile that vacancy of Principal arose in the 4 th
respondent's school on 1.6.2018. The 5th respondent
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17781/2018 and
this Court by judgment dated 18.10.2018 directed the 2nd
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
respondent to take a decision in the matter of appointment of
Principal in the light of the communication of the Government
dated 12.9.2018. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P10 order
conferring seniority on the 5th respondent and directing the
Manager to appoint the 5th respondent as Principal of the
school. The same was challenged before the 1st respondent
and the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was
allowed by Ext.P12. By Ext.R5(f) judgment, Ext.P12 order was
set aside and the 1st respondent was directed to reconsider the
matter after hearing all concerned. It is thereafter that
Ext.P13 order has been passed, it is submitted.
7. With regard to preference for appointment by
transfer to the post of HSST (Junior), the learned counsel for
the 5th respondent places reliance on a decision of a Division
Bench of this Court in Viswanathan v. Director of Higher
Secondary Education [2005 (3) KLT SN 78 (C.No.91)]. It
was held therein as follows :-
"the reasonable method is that when there are several
teachers belonging to different subjects entitled for
consideration to few vacancies, those posts to which senior
incumbents are to be considered shall be set apart for
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
quota of in service candidate, so that senior incumbent
shall not be superseded by a junior incumbent."
In the light of the above judgment, the 5 th respondent is
entitled for by transfer appointment to the post of HSST
(Junior) in preference to the petitioner based on her seniority
in the cadre of HSA, it is submitted.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 5 th
respondent that both the petitioner and the 5 th respondent
were appointed as HSST (Junior) in the quota reserved for by
transfer from qualified HSAs. A Division Bench of this Court in
the decision reported in Ramesan and others v. Manoj
Kumar K. and others [2019 (3) KHC 942] held that there is
no complete lacuna in Chapter XXXII, at least in so far in
fixation of the seniority as against by transfer appointment to
the post of HSST and in view of the provisions in Chapter
XXXII determining a ratio 1:3 between by transfer appointees
and direct recruits, seniority can be assigned to by transfer
appointees based on their length of service in the feeder
category of HSA/UPSA/LPSA. In the above judgment, it is
further clarified that in the case of direct recruits, there is no
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
Rule in Chapter XXXII for determining their inter se seniority.
The above position has further clarified by a Division Bench of
this Court in the decision reported in Girija Kumar S. and
another v. Rajitha K.G. and others [2019 (4) KLT 315]. In
paragraph 5 of the said judgment it was held that inter se
seniority of by transfer appointees to the post of HSST has to
be determined based on the turn allotted to them based on
their seniority in the feeder category, while fixing the ratio 1:3
between by transfer appointees and direct recruits.
9. It is submitted that the facts in Rajeswari Devi S.'s
case are entirely different from the present case. The
petitioner in the said case claimed seniority in the cadre of
HSST on direct recruitment based on her previous approved
service in a short term vacancy of HSA. But the issue involved
in this case is with respect to inter se seniority between by
transfer appointees. Relying on the decisions in Viswanathan
v. Director of Higher Secondary Education [2005 (3) KLT
SN 78 (C.No.91)] and in Ramesan and others v. Manoj
Kumar K. and others and in Girija Kumar v. Rajitha, it is
contended that the 5th respondent is entitled for by transfer
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
appointment and seniority in the cadre of HSST (Junior) in
preference to the writ petitioner.
10. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent places
reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in A. Janardhana v.
Union of India and others [(1983) 3 SCC 601], wherein it
was held as follows :-
"28. It is a well recognized principle of service jurisprudence
that any Rule of seniority has to satisfy the test of equality of
opportunity in public service as enshrined in Article 16. It is an
equally well recognized cannon of service jurisprudence that in
the absence of any other valid Rule for determining inter se
seniority of members belonging to the same service, the Rule of
continuous officiation or the length of service or the date of
entering in service and continuous uninterrupted service
thereafter would be valid and would satisfy the tests of Article
16."
In view of the above judgments, the contention of the writ
petitioner that age alone cannot be considered for determining
the inter se seniority between the petitioner and the 5 th
respondent is contended to be unsustainable in the eye of law. It
is further contended, relying on the decisions reported in
Balakrishnan v. A.E.O, Vadakara [2005 (4) KLT 64] and in
Appukuttan Pillai v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KLT 674] that
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
the provisions in KS & SSR are not applicable for aided schools.
It is in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 36 of the
Kerala Education Act that the Government incorporated Chapter
XXXII in the Kerala Education Rules (S.R.O.No.1009/2001).
Therefore, previous uninterrupted regular service of a teacher in
the very same school may not be ignored for determining the
seniority of by transfer appointee to the cadre of HSST (Junior)
and HSST, it is argued.
11. With regard to qualification for the post of HSST
(Junior), the learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that
as evident from Ext.R5(b) the 5th respondent acquired Post
Graduate Degree in Sociology as early as on 18.3.2010. The
University of Kerala has already been recognized the above Post
Graduate Degree as equivalent to M.A. degree in Sociology of the
University of Kerala. Ext.P3 order is declaratory in nature.
Therefore, Ext.R5(e) certificate issued by Sri.Venkiteswara
University is valid for appointment as HSST (Junior) in the 4 th
respondent's school w.e.f.18.3.2010.
12. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
5th respondent that the appointment of the petitioner as HSST
(Junior) Sociology has already been approved by the 3 rd
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
respondent w.e.f. 01.12.2011. There was no challenge against
Ext.P6 order. Only when the writ petitioner filed a revision
petition against Ext.P10 order, for the first time, he raised a
contention that the 5th respondent was not qualified for
appointment as HSST (Junior) in the 4th respondent's school as on
the date of appointment. Thus, there is inordinate delay of more
than 7 years on the part of the writ petitioner in raising such a
contention.
13. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I
notice that the question of seniority being considered is
specifically for the purpose of appointment to the post of
Principal in a higher secondary school. Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII
KER provides for the method of appointment to various
categories of posts in the higher secondary schools. The
appointment to the post of Principal is to be made by promotion
from category 2 under the respective educational agency or by
transfer from qualified Headmasters of Aided High Schools under
the respective educational agency in the ratio 2 : 1. Category 2 is
Higher Secondary School Teacher. Therefore, the respective
seniority in the post of HSST (Junior) is also not a relevant
consideration at all where two persons are being considered for
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
promotion to the post of Principal in the Higher Secondary
School. In Manager, Nanminda Higher Secondary School,
Kozhikode v. Director of Higher Secondary Education, Tvm
and others [2015 (3) KLT 307], it was categorically held as
follows :-
"17. As we have already stated, rule is specific that
promotion is to be effected from category 2, HSST. The basis on
which such promotion is to be effected is seniority in the feeder
category. Therefore, going by the provisions of the rules,
promotion is to be effected based on the seniority in the category
of HSST. If the contention canvassed by the writ petitioners is
accepted, this very basis will be upset. This can be
demonstrated with reference to the case of the writ petitioners
themselves. Admittedly, the writ petitioners joined service as
HSST (Junior), a post included as a separate category in the
special rules and is carrying a lower scale of pay. They were
promoted to the higher post of HSST long after the appellants
herein were directly appointed to that post. On their promotion,
the writ petitioners were on probation for the prescribed period
in the higher post of HSST. If the contention raised is accepted
and the service as HSST (Junior) is also reckoned for seniority,
these promotees will get credit in the service rendered by them
in the lower post of HSST (Junior) and on that basis, will steal a
march over their seniors in the category of HSST and based on
seniority so reckoned, will also earn promotion to the post of
Principal. That cannot be the purport of the rule as that will
destroy the very basis of the seniority position."
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
14. Both the petitioner and the 5th respondent were
appointed by transfer as HSST (Junior) on 1.12.2011.
Thereafter, they were appointed as HSST on 23.2.2013 and
25.2.2013 respectively. This was approved on 3.12.2013. The
5th respondent challenged the appointment of the petitioner as
HSST from 23.2.2013 and her own appointment only from
25.2.2013. This resulted in Ext.P15 proceedings dated
30.3.2019, by which, the 3rd respondent modified the date of
appointment of the 5th respondent also as 23.2.2013. This
Court, considering the specific provisions of Rule 4(1) has
repeatedly held that for appointment to the post of Principal in
higher secondary schools only the seniority in the post of HSST
is to be taken into account. I see no patent error in the said
exercise since the vacancies of HSST (English) and HSST
(Physical Science) to which both the incumbents were
appointed were in existence as on 23.2.2013 and there is no
reason stated for delaying the appointment of the 5 th
respondent for two days. Therefore, the petitioner as well as
the 5th respondent stand appointed as HSST with effect from
23.2.2013. It is to be noted that the petitioner has raised a
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
challenge against Ext.P15 proceedings as well on 18.12.2013,
soon after the approval for the appointments as HSST. The
contention of the petitioner is that the said proceedings are
issued belatedly. However, I find that immediately on
appointment given to the petitioner and the 5th respondent on
23.2.2013 and 25.2.2013 respectively being approved, the 5 th
respondent challenged the said action. It appears from
Ext.P15 and the documents referred to therein that it was only
on 3.12.2013 that the Regional Deputy Director had approved
the appointment of the 5th respondent from 25.2.2013 and the
complaint was raised soon thereafter.
15. The 5th respondent approached this Court filing W.P.
(C) No.17781/2018 and the 2nd respondent was directed to
consider the representation submitted by the 5 th respondent.
In the meanwhile, a vacancy of Principal arose in the school
with effect from 1.6.2018 and the petitioner was appointed.
Thereafter by Ext.P10 order dated 14.3.2019, the Deputy
Director of Education upheld the claim of the 5th respondent
for appointment to the post of Principal. The petitioner filed
W.P.(C) No.12276/2019 challenging the said order and the 5th
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
respondent filed W.P.(C) No.18317/2019 seeking enforcement
of Ext.P10 order. This Court, by Ext.P11 judgment, directed
the consideration of the revision petitions preferred by both
parties before the Government. Pursuant thereto Ext.P12
order was passed, which was challenged by the 5 th respondent
and the matter was required to be reconsidered. Ext.P13 is
the order passed by the Government after hearing both parties.
After considering the contentions, the Government found that
the contention raised by the petitioner that the 5 th respondent
was not qualified could not be accepted since the equivalency
granted to the qualification acquired by the 5 th respondent
relates back to the date of acquisition of the qualification and
cannot be said to have effect only from the date on which it
was rendered. Further, it was found that since the 5 th
respondent was the earlier entrant into service in the post of
HSA, the 5th respondent has to be considered as senior.
16. Several judgments have been relied on by the
learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent to contend
that though Rule 37(2) may have no application, the order by
which the concerned teachers were appointed as HSST would
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
be relevant for considering their seniority for appointment to
the post of Principal, I fail to see how those decisions would
make any difference in the consideration of the issue that
presently arises in this writ petition. The petitioner as well as
the 5th respondent now stand appointed to the post of HSST on
the same date. There is no pleading available on record to
decide as to who was entitled to be appointed first to the said
post. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there
was a selection process conducted to the post of HSST (Junior)
as is evident from Ext.P5 and that in the list of selected
candidates, the petitioner is included as Serial No.1 while the
5th respondent is included as Serial No.2. The counsel for the
5th respondent, on the other hand, contends that she being
senior in the cadre of HSA, she is entitled for seniority in the
cadre of HSST for promotion to the post of Principal.
17. Having considered the contentions advanced at
considerable length, I find that the specific finding of this
Court in Manager, Nanminda Higher Secondary School,
Kozhikode v. Director of Higher Secondary Education,
Tvm and others [2015 (3) KLT 307] is that for appointment to
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
the post of Principal in a higher secondary school, the seniority
in the cadre of HSST (Junior) is not a relevant consideration at
all. What is to be looked into is the seniority in the post of
HSST alone, which is the only post in the feeder category for
promotion to the post of Principal. Therefore, the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent with
regard to the question of earlier appointment as HST as also
the earlier claim for appointment as HSST (Junior) can have
absolutely no bearing on the question as to who among the two
persons appointed by transfer as HSST on the same day is
entitled for appointment as Principal of a higher secondary
school.
18. The petitioner submits that he is older in age and
though the provisions of the KS & SSR are not directly
applicable to posts in aided schools and consequently in
higher secondary schools in the aided sector also, it is clear
that the principle of older being considered senior in a
situation where both persons stand appointed to the post in
question on the same day is an accepted means of deciding
seniority. Where the seniority in the post of HSST (Junior) is
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
found to be explicitly irrelevant for consideration for the
appointment to the post of Principal in higher secondary
schools, I fail to see how the seniority in the yet earlier post of
HST is liable to be considered for the same.
19. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion
that the view taken by the Government in Ext.P13 order cannot
be accepted for the simple reason that the Government has
taken note of the earlier date of appointment of the 5th
respondent as HST for deciding the question of inter se
seniority in the post of HSST for promotion to the post of
Principal. Going by the specific provisions of law as contained
in Rule 4(1) of Chapter XXXII KER as explained by this Court in
Manager, Nanminda Higher Secondary School,
Kozhikode v. Director of Higher Secondary Education,
Tvm and others, I am of the opinion that the said exercise is
per se illegal.
The writ petition is, therefore, ordered upholding
Ext.P15 order, but setting aside Ext.P13 to the extent it cancels
the appointment of the petitioner as Principal and directs the
appointment of the 5th respondent instead. The petitioner, who
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
is older in age is entitled to succeed in this writ petition.
Accordingly, there will be a direction that the petitioner shall
be permitted to continue as Principal and shall be entitled to
all benefits thereof.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
Jvt/29.9.23
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40821/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS :-
Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
01-06-2018 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY THE GO(MS) NO. 211/2011/GEDN
DATED 24-10-2011
Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
AC.C/45638/2011 DATED 22-05-2012 ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE NO.
AC.C/028442/2012 DATED 23-05-2012 ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
Exhibit P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE POST OF HSST DATED
27-11-2011
Exhibit P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
B4/20401/RDD/HSE/EKM/2011 DATED 28-06-2012
ISSUED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6(a) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 76/2013/GEDN
DATED 23-02-2011
Exhibit P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
B4/3685/RDDE/HSE/2013 DATED 03-12-2013
APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE FIFTH
RESPONDENT W.E.F. 25-02-2013 ISSUED BY THE
SIXTH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
G/7600/2014/RDD/MLPM/HSE DATED 14-10-2014
APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER
W.E.F. 23-02-2013 ISSUED BY THE SIXTH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.
210/T2/2018/GEDN DATED 12-09-2018
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
Exhibit P9(a) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-09-
2014 IN W.P.(C) NO. 20849/2013
Exhibit P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
ACD.A2/64353/2017/HSE DATED 14-03-2019 ISSUED
BY THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
Exhibit P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02-12-
2019 IN W.P.(C) NO. 12276/2019 AND W.P.(C) NO.
18317/2019
Exhibit P12 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.
3335/2020/GEDN DATED 17-12-2020
Exhibit P13 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.
6288/2022/GEDN DATED 31-10-2022
Exhibit P14 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(MS) NO. 272/2018/HEDN
DATED 13-11-2018
Exhibit P15 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
J/11959/18/RDD/HSE/MLPM/K.DIS. DATED 30-03-2019
Exhibit P16 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04-06-2019
ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P17 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION AS PER
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 DATED 01-12-2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P18 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20-12-2022
RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF
DISTANCE EDUCATION, SRI VENKATESWARA
UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI
Exhibit P19 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF THE SCHOOL FOR JULY 2007
Exhibit P20 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03-04-2023
ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE CONTROLLER
OF EXAMINATIONS, SREE VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY,
TIRUPATI
WP(C) NO.40821 OF 2022
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS :-
EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO.526/PD DATED
17.07.1965 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE P.G. DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THIS
RESPONDENT ISSUED BY SRI VENKITESWARA UNIVERSITY,
TIRUPATHI DATED 18.03.2010
EXHIBIT R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LIST OF
UNIVERSITIES RECOGNIZED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION AS ON 15.01.2016.
EXHIBIT R5(d) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 14.11.2011
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY
OF KERALA DATED 14.11.2011
EXHIBIT R5(e) TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING
NO.B/350/2014/RDD/HSE., DATED 18.08.2014 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R5(f) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2022 IN W.P.
(C)NO.328/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT R5(g) A TRUE COPY OF APPROVAL ORDER BEARING
NO.B4/20407/RDD/HSE/2011, DATED 25.07.2012
GRANTED TO THE WRIT PETITIONER
Exhibit R5(h) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SERVICE AND
PAY ROLL ADMINISTRATIVE REPOSITORY FOR KERALA
DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE 'SPARK'.
Exhibit R5(i) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF ATTENDANCE
REGISTER OF THE PETITIONER'S SCHOOL.
Exhibit R5(j) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING
NO.SVU/DDE/PG(P)/EXAMS/2007 DATED 23.05.2007
PUBLISHED BY THE DIRECTOR, SRI VENKITESWARA
UNIVERSITY,TIRUPATI
Exhibit R5(k) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO BEARING NO.B
VIII/M.A/M.SC/MCOM.EXAMS/2007 PUBLISHED BY THE
CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION OF SRI VENKITESWARA
UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI,
