Kerala High Court
Kiran Anand S vs The State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM FAIR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 25656 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
KIRAN ANAND S.,AGED 38 YEARS, ANANDHA BHAVAN,
SWADESHABHIMANI NAGAR, NEYYATTINKARA, PIN - 695 121,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
SMT.K.VIDYA
SHRI.SATHEESH V.T.
RANI MADHU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
NEYYATTINKARA - 695 121, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
5 THE MANAGER, M.V.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -
695 525.
6 JIJILA T.,UPSA, M.V.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ARUMANOOR,
POOVAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 525.
7 ASWATHY U.S.,HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH), M.V.HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 525.
8 REJI,W/O.AJITH LAL, UPSA, M.V.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -
695 525.
W.P.(C) Nos.25656/2020 & 8530/2022 2
9 HEAD MISTRESS, M.V.HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL,ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT - 695 525.
BY ADVS.
FOR R1 TO R4 BY SMT. SAROJINI K.G., GOVT.PLEADER
FOR R7 BY SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
FOR R5 BY SRI.M.SAJJAD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C)No.8530/2022, THE COURT ON
20.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.25656/2020 & 8530/2022 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 8530 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
ASWATHI U.S,AGED 43 YEARS
U.P.SCHOOL TEACHER, MVHSS, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR POST, -
695 525, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
AISWARYA V.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE MANAGER
MVHSS, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR POST, -695 525,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
3 KIRAN ANAND.S. ANANDA BHAVAN, SWADESABHIMANI NAGAR,
NEYYATTINKARA-695 121
4 ADDL R4 KARTHIKA L.,AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. JIJEESH
H.U., UPST, M.V.H.S.S., ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 525, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA,
KULATHOOR, UCHAKKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695506
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R4 AS PER ORDER DATED
03.06.2022 IN I.A. 1/2022 IN WP(C) 8530/2022.
BY ADVS.
FOR R2 BY SAJJAD M.
FOR R1 BY SMT. SAROJINI K.G., GOVT. PLEADER
FOR R3 BY P.CHANDRASEKHAR
FOR R4 BY P.NANDAKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C)No.25656/2020, THE COURT ON
20.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.25656/2020 & 8530/2022 4
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.25656/2020 & 8530/2022]
....
Both these Writ Petitions pertain to the appointment of the
petitioner as HST (English) in M.V. Higher Secondary School,
Arumanoor, Poovar. As the issues in both the writ petitions are
connected, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment
(The parties are hereinafter referred to in this judgment as per their
respective ranks in WP(C) No.25656/2020, and Exhibits are also
referred to as per the order they are produced in the said writ
petition, unless otherwise specifically mentioned ).
2. W.P.(C) No.25656/2020 was filed by the petitioner viz.
Sri. Kiran Anand S., seeking for a declaration that he is entitled to
approval of his appointment as HST (English) from 6.8.2011
onwards and also that he is entitled to salary and allowances of HST
(English) from 6.8.2011 till 31.05.2019 and salary and allowances of
UPSA from 01.07.2019 till date.
3. He also seeks a direction to release the salary in the post
of HST (English) and the UPSA for the respective periods, as
referred to above.
4. The facts which led to the filing of these Writ Petitions
are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as UPSA by the 5 th
respondent, the Manager of M.V. Higher Secondary School, as per
Ext.P1 order dated 1.7.2009. The appointment of the petitioner was
against the vacancy that arose consequent to the promotion of Smt.
K.P.Sheeba Rani as HSA. However, since Smt. Sheeba Rani's
promotion was not approved, the petitioner's appointment was also
not approved by the authorities concerned. While the petitioner was
continuing in the unapproved service, disciplinary proceedings were
initiated by the 5th respondent-Manager which ultimately resulted in
Ext.P5 order by which the service of the petitioner was terminated
with effect from 6.12.2010. The petitioner challenged Ext.P5, which
ultimately resulted in Ext.P6 Government Order dated 17.10.2014
wherein the Government found that the termination of the service of
the petitioner was void ab initio and, therefore, the 5 th respondent-
Manager was directed to re-appoint the petitioner as UPSA or any
other post based on his qualification and willingness in the vacancy
that arose in the school immediately after 1.6.2011. The said order
is dated 17.10.2014.
5. It is to be noted that, in the meanwhile, immediately after
terminating the service of the petitioner as per Ext.P5, the 7 th
respondent was appointed in the said post. Initially the said
appointment was not approved by the Government, but
subsequently, the said post was approved. The said appointment
was taken into account while passing Ext.P6 order by the
Government.
6. The 5th respondent-Manager challenged Ext.P6 order by
filing W.P.(C) No.29945/2014 before this Court. The 7 th respondent
and some other teachers, who were denied the approval consequent
to the pending dispute, also filed writ petitions seeking respective
prayers for approval of their appointments, and the said Writ
Petitions were disposed of as per Ext.P8 common judgment dated
7.1.2020 wherein, the contentions raised by the Manager as against
Ext.P6 order were rejected and a direction was issued to the
Manager to take necessary steps to implement Ext.P6 Government
order dated 17.01.2014 at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of copy of the said judgment. It
is also to be noted in this regard that, during the pendency of the
above writ petition, there was an interim order staying the
implementation of Ext.P6; therefore, the petitioner was never
permitted to join duty.
7. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court in
Ext.P8, the Manager issued proceedings dated 3.2.2020, which is
produced as Ext.P10, wherein one of the orders was to re-appoint
the petitioner as HST(English) with effect from 6.8.2011.
8. It is to be noted in this regard that, during the pendency of
the said writ petition, the 7 th respondent was continuing in the post
of UPSA, which arose consequent to the termination of the
petitioner and her appointment was also approved by the authorities
concerned. While so (during the pendency of the writ petition that
culminated in Ext P8), the vacancy of HST (English) arose
consequent to the promotion of Sri.J.Pradeep HST (English), and
initially, the 7th respondent was appointed as she had a claim under
Rule 43 Chapter XIVA of KER being the senior-most UPSA. While
passing Ext.P10 order appointing the petitioner in the vacancy of
HST arose consequent to the promotion given to Sri.J.Pradeep, the
appointment order in favour of the 7 th respondent was cancelled by
the Manager. Thus, by virtue of Ext.P10, the petitioner herein was
appointed as HST (English) with effect from 6.8.2011 in the
promotion vacancy of Sri. J.Pradeep and the 7 th respondent's
appointment to that post was cancelled. The 7 th respondent was
re-appointed as UPSA, consequent to the cancellation of her
promotion as HST (English). Exhibit P11 appointment order was
issued by the Manager in favour of the petitioner on the basis of
Ext.P10.
9. However, when the petitioner reported for joining duty,
the Manager did not permit him to do so. Later, the Manager
reported as per Ext.P16, to the District Education Officer that the
vacancy of HST (English), to which the petitioner was appointed as
per Ext.P15, is no longer in existence due to division fall,
consequent to the staff fixation for the year 2016-2017, 2019-2020.
The appointment of the petitioner was also approved by the
authorities concerned, and in that circumstances, the writ petition
was submitted by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
i) call for the records leading to Exhibit P16 and quash
the same by issuing a writ of Certiorari;
ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to approval of his
appointment as HST (English) from 06.08.2011 onward
and entitled to salary and allowances of HSST (English)
from 06.08.2011 till 31.05.2019 and salary and allowances
of UPSA from 01.07.2019 till date.
iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction directing the respondents 4,5 and 9 to release and
pay to the petitioner salary and allowances for the period
from 06.08.2011 approving his appointment as HST
(English), till 31.05.2019 and pay to the petitioner salary
and allowances in the post of UPSA from 01.06.2019
onwards, without delay, forthwith and;
iv) Pass such further orders that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to grant on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case.
10. W.P.(C)No.8530/2022 is submitted by the 7th respondent
in WP(C) No.25656/2020 challenging the proceedings of the
appointment of the petitioner, by cancelling the promotion granted
to the 7th respondent, which is Exhibit P10 in W.P.(C)
No.25656/2020 whereas it has been produced as Ext.P3 in WP©
No.8530/2022. The grievance of the 7 th respondent is that the
cancellation of the appointment already given to her to the post of
HST (English), for accommodating the petitioner was not justifiable
in view of the fact that, she had every right to claim promotion to the
said post, by virtue of Rule 43 Chapter XIVA of KER. Several other
contentions were also raised by the 7 th respondent in the said writ
petition.
11. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the approval
of the appointment of the petitioner was ultimately granted by the
Government as per order dated 20.02.2021, which is produced along
with the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent. As per the
same, the petitioner's appointment was approved from 6.8.2011 until
the post subsisted. The said order was issued taking note of the fact
that the post to which the petitioner was appointed happened to be
abolished consequent to the staff fixation orders.
12. All the respondents have submitted their counter
affidavits highlighting their respective contentions and opposing the
prayers sought in the writ petition.
13. Heard Sri. P. Chandrasekhar, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.25656/2020,
Sri.Vijayamohanan P.K., the learned counsel appearing for the 7 th
respondent in WP(C) No.25656/2020, who is the petitioner in
WP(C) No.8530/2022, Sri. M. Sajjad., the learned counsel
appearing for the 5th respondent- the Manager of the School and
Smt. Sarojini K.G., the learned Government Pleader for the Official
respondents.
14. The first question that arises for consideration is whether
the petitioner in WP(c) No.25656/2020 is entitled to approval of his
appointment as HST (English) from 06.08.2011 onwards and
entitled to salary and allowances of HSST (English) from
06.08.2011 till 31.05.2019 and salary and other allowances of UPSA
from 01.07.2019 till date. As far as the approval of the appointment
is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner is now redressed as
Ext.R4(c) order has been passed by the 4th respondent by which the
appointment has been approved with effect from 6.8.2011 till the
abolition of the vacancy. Therefore, what remains is the question
whether the petitioner is entitled to salary and other benefits
pertaining to the said period. As far as the period covered as per
Ext.R4(c) is concerned, the learned Government Pleader, as well as
the other respondents, raised an objection as to the entitlement of the
petitioner to get a salary mainly on the reason that even though as
per Exts. P10 and P11, the petitioner was appointed in the post of
HST (English) from 6.8.2011, he never worked actually. The
appointment order itself was issued in 2020, and by that time, the
post had been abolished on account of the staff fixation order issued
in 2016-2017. Therefore, since he did not work in the said post, no
salary needs to be paid to him, contends the learned Government
Pleader.
15. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that the
petitioner was appointed as UPSA by the 5 th respondent with effect
from 01.07.2009. While the proceedings of the approval were
pending consideration, his service was terminated as per Ext.P5
order, which was found to be void ab initio by the Government as
per Ext.P6. In Ext. P6, the Government did not order reinstatement of
the petitioner, presumably because of the reasons that the petitioner,
at the time of termination, was continuing in an unapproved post,
the 7th respondent was already appointed to the said post and her
services were approved. On the other hand, in Ext. P6, after
declaring that the termination order was void ab initio, the petitioner
was directed to be re-appointed in a vacancy which arose in the
school after 1.6.2011. Therefore, in the light of the Ext.P6 order, the
petitioner should have been appointed immediately after the said
order against the vacancy that arose after 1.6.2011. However, as the
5th respondent-Manager challenged Ext.P6 before this Court by
filing WP(C) No.29945/2014, it could not be implemented. It is
evident from the records that there was a stay against the
implementation of Ext.P6 pending disposal of W.P.(C)
No.38327/2018. The said writ petition was ultimately disposed of
along with other connected cases on 7.1.2020 as per Ext.P8
judgment directing the implementation of Ext.P6 within a period of
one month. It was in compliance with the direction of this Court in
Exts.P8, P10 proceedings of appointment were issued, and
consequently, Ext.P11 appointment order was submitted by the
Manager for approval. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner had
every right to get the employment, and there was also a direction to
re-appoint him in the vacancy that arose after 1.6.2011. Consequent
to the litigation initiated at the instance of the 5 th respondent, the
implementation thereof ultimately got prolonged and consequential
orders could be issued only on 3.2.2020. By that time, the post to
which the appointment of the petitioner made was abolished and as a
consequence thereof, the petitioner has been now granted protection
as per the relevant rules. Thus, it is evident that, all along, the
petitioner was deprived of his legitimate appointment despite having
positive orders issued in his favour. Moreover, in Ext.R4(c) order by
which the appointment of the petitioner was approved, it is not
stated that the approval was granted notionally, but on the other
hand, the approval was granted to the petitioner from 6.8.2011 till
the date on which the post was abolished. Therefore, as the
appointment of the petitioner was approved for the period referred to
in R4(c) unconditionally, he is entitled to get salary for the said
period. Since it is discernible from the records that the post to
which the petitioner was appointed was abolished on 15.07.2016,
the entitlement of the petitioner to get salary and other benefits
should be confined to the period from 6.8.2011 till 14.7.2016.
16. Of course, while taking a decision in this regard, the
crucial aspect to be considered is whether the payment of salary to
the petitioner would amount to double payment as far as the
Government is concerned. In this regard, it is to be noted that, even
though the 7th respondent was working in the post of HST, to which
the petitioner was given re-appointment, consequent to her
promotion to this post during the pendency of the litigations, the 7 th
respondent's promotion was never approved by the authorities
concerned. Therefore, as the appointment of the 7 th respondent in the
post of HST (English) was a promotion by considering the claim of
the 7th respondent under Rule 43 Chapter XIVA of KER, even
though her promotion to the post of HST was not approved, she was
being paid salary in the post of UPSA in which she has got approval
of the service. In short, as far as the vacancy of HST (English) to
which the petitioner is now appointed is concerned, the Government
never paid the salary in the scale of HST to any person, even though
the 7th respondent was appointed in the said vacancy, and she
continued in the service during the relevant period. Therefore, the
question of double payment will not arise in this case since the
Government never paid the salary to any person in the scale of HST.
17. In W.P.(C) No.8530/2022, the challenge raised by the 7 th
respondent is against the cancellation of her promotion to
accommodate the petitioner. The claim of the 7 th respondent/petition
in WP(C) No 8530/2022 is mainly by relying on her right to get
promoted under Rule 43 Chapter XIVA of KER as she is qualified to
get a promotion. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed in this
regard is that the 7th respondent was appointed in the post of UPSA,
which arose consequent to the order terminating the service of the
petitioner from the said post as per Ext.P5, which termination, was
later found to be illegal and void ab initio. Therefore, the crucial
aspect to be noticed is that, had the 5 th respondent not issued a
termination order as evidenced by Ext.P5, which was declared
illegal at a later point of time, the petitioner would have continued as
UPSA in the post, which was occupied by the 7 th respondent till her
promotion was cancelled. If that be so, he could have raised a
legitimate claim under Rule 43 Chapter XIVA of KER against the
vacancy of HST (English) to which the petitioner is now appointed.
The said opportunity was denied to the petitioner only because an
illegal order of termination was passed by the 5th respondent-
Manager, and the 7th respondent is the beneficiary of the said illegal
order. Moreover, the appointment of the petitioner against the post
of HST (English) by cancelling the appointment of the 7 th
respondent to that post was in compliance with Ext.P6 Government
order, which was directed to be implemented by this Court as per
Ext.P8 judgment. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was
intended to redress the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the
denial of his legitimate right and the 7 th respondent, being the
beneficiary of the orders which resulted in the denial of the right of
the petitioner, cannot claim a superior right over the petitioner as far
as the appointment of the petitioner in the post of HST(English) is
concerned, due to the peculiar circumstances as referred to above.
Therefore, I am of the view that the claim of the 7th respondent and
the challenge raised by her against the order of appointment of the
petitioner is not legally sustainable, and I do not find any scope for
interfering with the order of appointment of the petitioner. It is also
learned that the statutory revision petition submitted by the 7th
respondent challenging the Ext.P6 order in WP(C) 25656/2020 (Ext
P3 in WP(C) No 8530/2022) has already been dismissed as per Ext
P6 order in WP(C) No 8530/2022, by the Government.
18. Thus, when all the aforesaid aspects are taken into
consideration, the only irresistible conclusion possible is that the
appointment made as per Ext.P10 was the legal entitlement of the
petitioner and, therefore, he has every right to get consequential
benefits arising from the same, including arrears of salary.
19. Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that, now, the petitioner is a protected teacher in the
cadre of HST and the post stands abolished with effect from
15.7.2016. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to
get an appointment in the vacancy that arose after the abolition by
virtue of the operation of Rule 51A Chapter XIVA of KER.
However, I am of the view that this is a matter he has to raise as a
claim in this regard, before the authorities concerned by making
proper representation along with the necessary documents.
Moreover, the petitioner claimed salary in the post of UPSA with
effect from 1.6.2019, and as of now, the same cannot be considered.
This is because the salary can only be granted if the petitioner's right
to get an appointment under Rule 51A Chapter XIVA KER is
established against a particular vacancy in an adjudication by a
competent authority, since he is already deployed for want of
vacancy in the staff fixation order passed during 2016-2018.
In such circumstances, WP(C) No.8530/2022 is hereby
dismissed. W.P.(C)No.25656/2020 is disposed of, directing the
respondents 2 to 5 to ensure that the salary and other benefits
pertaining to the period from 6.8.2011 till 14.7.2016 are disbursed to
the petitioner. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, and
the same shall be disbursed within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is
permitted to submit a representation before the competent officer
among the respondents 3 and 4, highlighting his claim under Rule
51A of Chapter XIVA of KER. If any representation is submitted
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment, the same shall be disposed of by the competent
authorities within a period of three months thereafter after hearing
the petitioner, the Manager and the affected parties, if any.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25656/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
01/07/2009 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT,
APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS UPSA.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/07/2009
OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.B/4651/09/K.DIS. DATED 28/01/2010 OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.K.DIS/B-5/8433/10
DATED 04/10/2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.M27/2010-11 DATED
06/12/2010 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.GO.(RT)
4304/2014/G.EDN. DATED 17/10/2014 OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.343/2018/G.EDN.
DATED 19/01/2018 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 07/01/2020 IN
WPC NO.29945 OF 2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE
COURT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
12/06/2020.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03/02/2020
APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS HST (ENGLISH)
OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER AS PER RULE
7 OF CHAPTER XIV A OF KERALA EDUCATION
RULES OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/02/2020
OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 9TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 07/09/2020 OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 13/02/2020 OF
THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
22/06/2011 APPOINTING SMT.JIJILA T. OF THE
5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.B6/16376/20 DATED
05/10/2020 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE
5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR
NO.O&M1/6730/2020/DEO DATED 02/11/2020 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.372/2021/G.EDN. DATED 16/01/2021 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B6/19437/2020 DATED
20/02/2021 OF THE D.E.O., NEYYATTINKARA.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30/09/2020.
EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.372/2021/G.EDN.
DATED 16/01/2021.
EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/19437/20
DATED 20/02/2021.
EXHIBIT R-5 (A) TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN W.P(C) NO.
29945 OF 2014 DATED 12.11.2014
EXHIBIT R-5(B) TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN W.P(C) NO.
29945 OF 2014 DATED 30.09.2015
EXHIBIT R-5 (C) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 08.01.2020
EXHIBIT R-5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER , NEYYATTINKARA VIDE
ORDER NO. B6/19437/2020 DATED 20.02.2021
EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
6TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.6.2009 AND APPROVAL
RECORDED THEREON.
EXHIBIT R6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.B6/4071/16/D.Dis. DATED 30.6.2018 OF
THE DEO
EXHIBIT R6© TRUE COPY OF THE
G.O.(RT)NO.5078/2019/G.Edn. DATED
25.11.2019 OF THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT R6(D) TRUE COPY OF THE B.A.CERTIFICATE OF THE
6TH RESPONDENT DATED 31.01.2005 ALONG WITH
TYPED COPY
EXHIBIT R6(E) TRUE COPY OF THE B.Edn.CERTIFICATE OF THE
6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF
SMT.REJI C.A. DATED 8.11.2010.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8530/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT)
NO.4304/2014/G.EDN DATED 17.10.2014
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
07.01.2020 IN WPC NO.29945/20214 AND
CONNECTED CASES
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M/APP/3/2020
DATED 03.02.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
09.04.2021 FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT IN TERMS OF EXHIBIT
P2 JUDGMENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO.920/2022/G.EDN
DATED 18.02.2022 DISPOSING EXHIBITS P4 AND
P5.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R3(A) GO(RT) NO.372/2021/G/EDN DATED 16.1.2021.
EXHIBIT R-2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C)
NO. 29945/2014 DATED 12.11.2014
EXHIBIT R-2 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P (C)
NO. 29945/2014 DATED 30.09.2015
EXHIBIT R-2 (C) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
MANAGER VIDE NO. M/APP/3/2020 DATED
03.02.2020
EXHIBIT R-2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER WITH
RESPECT TO SRI. KIRAN ANAND DATED
03.02.2020 W.E.F 06.08.2011 AS HSA
(ENGLISH)
EXHIBIT R-2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B6/19437/2020
DATED 20.02.2021 OF THE DEO, NEYYATTINKARA
EXHIBIT R-2(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B6/8215/2012
DATED 20.11.2014 OF THE DEO, NEYYATINKARA
EXHIBIT R-2(G) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B6/8215/2012
DATED 26.02.2015 OF THE DEO, NEYYATINKARA
EXHIBIT R-2(H) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.
H2/35985/2016/DPI DATED 19.08.2016 OF THE
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
EXHIBIT R-2(I) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.
4396/2019/G.EDN. DATED 24.10.2019
