Kerala High Court
The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 31 July, 2025
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 5990 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGER,
THUVAKKODE ALP SCHOOL, THUVAKKODE,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673304.
2 ARUNA HARIDAS,
LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, THUVAKKODE ALP
SCHOOL, THUVAKKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673304.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
ADV.JENZIA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE-
II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673101.
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
2
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673305.
5 ARIFA C.,
RESIDING AT KUNNATHUPARAMBA VEEDU,
P.O. PARAPPANPOYIL, THAMARASSERY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673573.
BY ADV.
DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM-FOR R5
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV TONY AUGUSTINE, GP - FOR R1 TO R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 31.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).7379/2019, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 7379 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
C.ARIFA
D/O.MUHAMMED,
KUNNATHUPARAMBU HOUSE,
PARAPPANPOYIL, THAMARASSERY-673 573.
BY ADV DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
JAGATHI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 305.
4 THE MANAGER,
THUVAKKODE AIDED L.P.SCHOOL, THUVAKKODE P.O.,
QUILANDY (VIA), CHEMENCHERY,KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT,PIN-673 304
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
4
5 P.C.TINTU,
LPSA, THUVAKKODE AIDED L.P.SCHOOL, THUVAKKODE
P.O., QUILANDY (VIA), CHEMENCHERY,KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT,PIN-673 304
6 ARUNA
LPSA, THUVAKKODE AIDED L.P.SCHOOL, THUVAKKODE
P.O., QUILANDY (VIA), CHEMENCHERY,KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT,PIN-673 304
BY ADVS.
SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3
SHRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, ADV.M.SAJJAD, ADV.JENZIA- FOR R4 & R6
SHRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN - FOR R5
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).5990/2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
5
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
As common issues are involved, these writ petitions were
heard together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in accordance
with the array in W.P.(C)No.7379 of 2019.
2. Petitioner's father was Arabic Teacher of the 4 th
respondent school and he died on 06.07.1990. Petitioner was
aged 4 years at the time of the death of her father. Petitioner's
grievance is that her claim under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV(A) of
KER was overlooked by the Manager of the school and the
Government rejected her claim.
3. Petitioner contends that Ext.P5 request dated
11.11.2004 was submitted by her to the manager immediately
on completion of 18 years of age, raising a claim for
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
appointment under Rule 51B. She states that Ext.P8, another
representation, was submitted on 01.09.2005 to the then
manager. On 20.04.2009, petitioner claims to have sent another
representation produced as Ext.P9 to the manager. However, it
was returned to her stating that it was not known as to who was
the manager. On 27.07.2012, petitioner approached the
Assistant Educational Officer. On 03.09.2012, the 3 rd respondent
issued Ext.P11 clarifying that the petitioner should approach the
manager. On 02.01.2013, a registered letter was sent by the
petitioner to the then manager. The same was returned
'unclaimed'. On 20.12.2016, Ext.P13 was issued by the manager
to the petitioner, stating that her claim was time barred and
cannot be considered. On 05.12.2016, another representation
was submitted to the A.E.O.
4. No vacancy was available in the school from 2006-07
to 2017-18. A vacancy arose on 01.06.2017 and another arose
on 01.06.2018. Respondents 5 and 6 were appointed against
those vacancies. On 11.08.2017, petitioner approached the 3 rd
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
respondent requesting not to approve the appointment of the 5th
respondent. The 3rd respondent rejected approval. The Manager,
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5990/2019, filed appeal before the 2 nd
respondent on 12.07.2018. Fifth respondent thereafter filed W.P.
(C)No.29211/2018. Pursuant to the judgment dated 10.09.2018
in the said writ petition the Government considered the appeal
of the manager and the representation of the petitioner. By
Ext.P19 dated 22.01.2019 Government found that there was
nothing wrong with the appointment of the 5 th respondent and
directed the A.E.O. to grant approval for the appointment of the
5th respondent. Further, it was observed in Ext.P19 that the
manager shall consider the petitioner for appointment in the
next arising vacancy. This direction issued by the Government
is under challenge in W.P.(C)No.5990/2019 filed by the
manager. By Ext.P20 dated 16.02.2019, request of the
petitioner was rejected by the Government.
5. Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7379/2019 seeks to quash
Exts.P19 and P20 orders issued by the Government. She seeks
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
direction to the 4th respondent to appoint her as LPSA with
effect from 01.06.2017. In W.P.(C)No.5990/2019 the manager
challenges the order dated 22.01.2019 to the extent it directs
the manager to consider the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7379/2019
for appointment.
6. I have heard Sri.Dr.George Abraham, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Smt.Jenzia, learned counsel for the 4 th
respondent, Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the 5 th
respondent and Sri.Tony Augustine, learned Government
Pleader.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.7379/2019 submitted that the petitioner raised a claim
for appointment under Rule 51B OF KER immediately on
attaining the age of majority. Several representations were
submitted to the manager from time to time. The school was
under different managers during the relevant period. However,
the petitioner kept on repeatedly raising her claim. He
submitted that details of representations submitted to the
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
manager by the petitioner are narrated in the writ petition.
Ext.P12 is a list of representations submitted to the manager
and also to the authorities of department. The learned counsel
submitted that Ext.P9 sent through registered post on
20.04.2009 was returned to the petitioner with an endorsement
that the manager was not known. He contended that the
petitioner raised claim for appointment within the time limit
stipulated under the relevant Government Order. Ext.P9 was
submitted within two years from the expiry of the period
stipulated. However, Government had power to condone the
delay in submitting application for a period of two years and
hence the representation was submitted within the extendable
period. He contended that these aspects were not properly
noted by the authorities while rejecting the request of the
petitioner. He pointed out that in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Ext.P19
petitioner's contentions were noted. But the authority who
issued Ext.P19 failed to analyse the facts and circumstances as
well as the claim of the petitioner properly. The learned counsel
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
contended that the managers were refusing to acknowledge
receipt of the representation submitted and the first
communication issued by a manager was Ext.P13 wherein it was
stated that the petitioner did not submit application for
appointment invoking Rule 51B before 12.11.2007 and the
application was submitted first, only on 10.9.2011. He
contended that the said statement was contrary to facts and in
view of Ext.P9, petitioner's contention ought to have been
accepted by the Government. He therefore submitted that lawful
claim of the petitioner has been rejected and hence she is liable
to be appointed with effect from the date of occurrence of the
first vacancy after she raised the claim.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the manager
submitted that the father of the petitioner died in 1990.
Petitioner was born on 12.11.1986 and she attained majority on
11.11.2004. Her first application for appointment was submitted
only on 10.09.2011 which was even beyond the extendable time
limit. The present manager purchased the school; however no
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
information regarding any pending claims was given by the
previous manager. The learned counsel submitted that if the
case of the petitioner that the managers were refusing to accept
her request was correct, she should have approached the
authorities of the Education Department immediately. She
pointed out that the petitioner approached the Educational
Authorities for the first time only in 2012 as evident from
Ext.P11. The learned counsel also submitted that the
Government considered the issue elaborately and concluded
that there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner. Learned
counsel made extensive reference to Ext.P19 in support of this
contention. Learned counsel also pointed out that there are
serious discrepancies in the versions of the petitioner regarding
the respective dates of the representations claimed to have
been presented to the manager. She hence submitted that the
petitioner in fact has not submitted any representation to the
manager within the time limits stipulated in the relevant
Government Order and hence her claim was not liable to be
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
accepted. The learned counsel further submitted that the
direction issued by the Government in Ext.P19 to appoint the
petitioner in the next arising vacancy was illegal and improper.
She contended that the Government has no power to issue such
a direction after finding that the claim of the petitioner under
Rule 51B was untenable.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent
submitted that the appointment of the 5 th respondent was
approved by the District Educational Officer by Ext.R5(d). He
pointed out that it is clarified in Rule 51B itself that Government
Orders governing compassionate appointment will apply to the
appointments under the Rule. The learned counsel referred to
paragraph 19 of G.O.(P)No.12/99/P&ARD. dtd. 24.05.1999. The
paragraph reads as follows:-
"Time Limit for preferring application
19. The time line for preferring applications under the
scheme will be 2 years from the date of death of
Government servants. In the case of minor, the period
will be within 3 years after attaining majority."
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
10. He hence contended that the last date for submitting
application as far as the petitioner was concerned was
11.11.2007. He argued that no application was filed by the
petitioner before the said date. The learned counsel invited
attention of the Court to Ext.R5(a), a copy of the representation
submitted by the petitioner to the manager on 02.11.2016. The
learned counsel contended that the petitioner, in page 2 of the
representation, stated that she had submitted requests earlier
on 10.09.2011 and 22.09.2015. He pointed out that therefore
the petitioner had no case in Ext.R5(a) that any request was
made prior to 10.09.2011. He contended that the story
projected by the petitioner that she had been submitting
representations since 2005 was developed only for the purpose
of maintaining the claim and in fact no request was made before
the crucial date, 11.11.2007. The learned counsel relied on
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shreejith.L. v.
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
Deputy Director (Education), Kerala and others [(2012) 7
SCC 248]. He also relied on judgment of a Division Bench of this
Court in Manager, Naduvathur U.P.School and Another v.
Bijeesh K. and others [2019 (3) KLT SN 10].
11. The learned Government Pleader contended that the
Government had analysed the claim of the petitioner properly
and concluded that the same was not sustainable. He pointed
out that the petitioner has not produced any reliable material at
any point of time to show that a request was properly made to
the manager before the expiry of the time limit stipulated under
the relevant Government Order. He contended that the purpose
of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the family
of the deceased employee to tide over the financial crisis that
may follow the death of the employee. Even though the right
for compassionate appointment has been recognized under Rule
51B it is not for the purpose of ensuring appointment to the
family members of the deceased employee any time. In the
case at hand, father of the petitioner expired in 1990. Petitioner
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
attained majority much later, in 2004. The first request was
made only in the year 2011. Hence, the first application was
submitted more than two decades after the death of the father
of the petitioner. He hence argued that the Government rightly
rejected the claim of the petitioner and decided to grant
approval to the appointment of the 5 th respondent. The learned
Government Pleader also submitted that the Government has
only directed the manager to consider the petitioner for
appointment in the next arising vacancy as a matter of
sympathy and no mandatory direction was issued. Hence, he
submitted that the relief sought in W.P.(C)No.5990/2019 need
not be granted.
12. I have considered the submissions of all parties. The
basic dispute is as to whether the petitioner had submitted
request to the manager within the time limit provided under the
relevant Government Order for appointment under Rule 51B.
No doubt, time till 11.11.2007 was available to her as per the
Government Order. The learned counsel for the petitioner
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
heavily relied on Ext.P9 representation dated 20.04.2009 to
contend that the said representation sent by registered post and
returned to the petitioner was within the extendable period. He
pointed out that the Government was competent to condone the
delay in submitting applications for appointment under Rule 51B
up to a period of two years from the time limit stipulated under
the Government Order dated 24.05.1999, three years after
attaining majority. He also contented that even within the time
limit as per the G.O., representations were submitted. It is to be
noted that there is no proof brought on record to show that the
petitioner submitted any request to the manager within the time
limit. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for
the manager, in case the representations submitted within the
time limit were not accepted by the manager it was for the
petitioner to approach the authorities concerned and point out
the same to them. However, petitioner has no case that she
approached the authorities of the Educational Department any
time before 2011. Even if the contention of the learned counsel
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
for the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P9, stated to be returned is
assumed as correct, at that point of time also petitioner could
have approached the authorities of the Educational Department.
It is also to be noted that Ext.P9 was dated 20.04.2009 and
condoning the delay in submitting the request is not something
which can be claimed as a matter of right.
13. In the above said circumstances it must be held that
there is no material on record to show that the petitioner had
submitted any proper request to the manager for appointment
under Rule 51B within the time limit stipulated under the
Government Order dated 24.05.1999.
14. In Shreejith.L.(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held as follows:-
"8. Appointments on compassionate basis are
recognised as a permissible mode of induction into
service under the Kerala Education Rules, framed
under the Kerala Education Act. Rule 9-A appearing in
Chapter XXIV-A and Rule 51-B appearing in Chapter
XIV-A of the said Rules are relevant in this regard.
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
While Rule 9-A deals with employment of dependants
of the non-teaching staff of an aided school dying in
harness, Rule 51-B deals with employment of
dependants of an aided school teacher dying in
harness.
9. The said Rules are as under:
"9-A.The Manager shall give
employment to a dependant of the non-
teaching staff of an aided school dying in
harness. Government orders relating to
employment assistance to the
dependants of government servants
dying in harness shall, mutatis mutandis,
apply in the matter of such appointment."
(emphasis supplied)
"51-B. The Manager shall give
employment to a dependant of an aided
school teacher dying in harness.
Government orders relating to
employment assistance to the dependants
of government servants dying in harness
shall mutatis mutandis, apply in the
matter of such appointments."
It is evident from a plain reading of the above that
appointments under the statutory rules are further
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
regulated by the terms of government orders issued
on the subject.
10. The Government Order dated 24-5-1999 is in
this regard relevant, for it stipulates the conditions of
eligibility including the family income and the
category of appointments that can be made under
the compassionate scheme. Qualification for the post,
age-limit for making appointments and time for filing
applications for compassionate appointments are
matters regulated by the said order. Para 19 of the
Government Order stipulates the period of limitation
for preferring applications and may be extracted:
"19.The time-limit for preferring
applications under the scheme will be
2 years from the date of death of
government servants. In the case of
minor, the period will be within 3
years after attaining majority."
11. A conjoint reading of the statutory rules and
Para 19 of the Government Order extracted above
would show that the compassionate appointment
scheme itself permits applications to be made within
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
two years from the date of death of the government
servant. In the case of minors the permissible period
for making applications is three years from the date
the minor attains majority. .....................................
........................................................................
18. There is considerable merit in the contention
urged by Mr Rajan. It is not in dispute that
Respondent 1 had attained majority on 8-5-1995
whereas the application for compassionate
appointment was made on 10-9-2007. This
application was, on the face of it, beyond the period
stipulated in the scheme for making such a claim.
The High Court appears to have confused an
application required to be filed within the period
stipulated for the purpose with the availability of a
vacancy against which such an application could be
considered by the Manager. These were two distinctly
different matters. What was important was the
making of an application for appointment on
compassionate basis within the period stipulated for
the purpose. Whether or not a vacancy is available
had nothing to do with the making of the application
itself.
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
19. An application could and indeed ought to have
been made by Respondent 1 within the time
stipulated, regardless whether there was a vacancy
already available or likely to become available in the
near or distant future. Respondent 1 having failed to
do that, could not claim a compassionate
appointment especially when there was nothing on
record to suggest that the family was in penury
notwithstanding the lapse of a considerable period
since the demise of the breadwinner; during which
period Respondent 1 had got married and settled
down in life and supports a family. The High Court
was in that view clearly in error in issuing a
mandamus to the Manager to appoint the respondent
on compassionate basis which order calls for
interference and is hereby reversed."
15. Division Bench of this Court in Manager,
Naduvathur UP School (supra) followed the above judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
16. In view of the law laid down in the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court noted above, the claim of the petitioner
is untenable.
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
17. In W.P.(C)No.5990/2019, the grievance of the
manager is that the Government directed in Ext.P19 that the
petitioner shall be given appointment in the next arising
vacancy. Government found that the claim of the petitioner was
not tenable. However, evidently out of sympathy some
observations were made in Ext.P19 and the manager was
directed to consider the petitioner for appointment in the next
arising vacancy. As rightly pointed out by the learned
Government Pleader the Government has not directed to
appoint the petitioner. The direction was only to consider her.
Propriety of issuing even such a direction is doubtful. However,
the same need not be considered as binding on the manager as
no authority is available to the government to issue a direction
to consider any particular individual for appointment in the next
arising vacancy. In view of this observation, no other orders are
required in W.P.(C)No.5990/2019.
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
In view of the above discussion, W.P.(C)No.7379/2019 is
dismissed and W.P.(C)No.5990/2019 is disposed of.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5990/2019
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
DATED 12.6.2018 OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.K.DIS/1634/2018 DATED 11.1.2019 OF
THE AEO, KOYILANDI
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.270/2019/G.EDN DATED 22.1.2019
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT W.P.
(C)No.3237/2012 DATED 21.10.2016
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7379/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF
THE PETITIONER'S FATHER
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
24.08.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL
LEAVING CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2004
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OBTAINED
UNDER RTI ACT DATED 30.09.2015
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED
27.09.2017, OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE SRI. K.P.MUHAMMAD
SHAJIFF
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
20.04.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE MANAGER
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED
20.04.2009 ALONG WITH THE ENDORSEMENT
OF THE HEADMASTER OF THE SCHOOL
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER ON
03.09.2012
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF REGISTERED
LETTERS SENT BY THE PETITIONER FROM
20.04.2009 TO 11.09.2017
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
2025:KER:57064
W.P.(C).Nos.5990 & 7379 of 2019
20.12.2016 SENT BY THE MANAGER
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
05.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
EDUCATION OFFICER
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 02.01.2013
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE COVER OF THE LETTER
SHOWING THE ENDORSEMENT "UNCLAIMED"
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
11.08.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
MANAGER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON
12.07.2018
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY GO(RT) NO.270/19/G.EDN.DATED
22.01.2019
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO
(RT) NO.609/19/G.EDN.DATED 16.02.2019
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R5(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 02.11.2016.
EXHIBIT R5(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.12/99/P&ARD
DATED 24.05.1999.
EXHIBIT R5(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN
FORM 27.
EXHIBIT R5(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEO,
VADAKARA DATED 01.07.2019.
EXHIBIT R5(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO.29211/2018 DATED 10.09.2018.
