Kerala High Court
K.P.Ravikumar vs State Of Kerala on 18 June, 2025
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 2164 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
K.P.RAVIKUMAR
AGED 68 YEARS
MANAGER, SREE NARAYANA TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE,
CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR - 680
001.
4 ADDL. SOUMINI G
W/O.MOHANAN K.R., AGED 54 YEARS, KRISHNAPRIYA, MINALOOR,
ATHANI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.
[ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.12.2021 IN
I.A.1/2021 IN WP(C)2164/2021.]
BY ADV SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
GOVT.PLEADER -SMT. NIMA JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.06.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.18201/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
:2:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12745 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SOUMINI. G
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. MOHAN K.R., KRISHNAPRIYA, MINALOOR, ATHANI POST,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
CIVIL STATION, AYANTHOL P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680003.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
CHAVAKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680506.
5 MANAGER,
SREE NARAYANA TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE (SNTTI),
CHERUTHURUTHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-679121.
BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NIMA JACOB
SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.06.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.18201/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
:3:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18201 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGER,
SREE NARAYANA TEACHERS' TRAINING INSTITUTE,
CHERUTHURUTHY.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN- 679121
2 UNNI.K.P,
HEAD MASTER, SREE NARAYANA TEACHERS' TRAINING INSTITUTE,
CHERUTHURUTHY.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN- 679121 2.
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE.P.O, THRISSUR-680 003.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
CHAVAKKAD.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN: 680 506.
5 SOUMINI.G,
W/O MOHAN.K.R, "KRISHNAPRIYA", MINALOOR, ATHANI POST,
THRISSUR DISTRICT. 683585
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
:4:
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
OTHER PRESENT:
GP- NIMA JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.06.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.2164/2021 AND 12745/2021, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
:5:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that in view of the intervening development, nothing
survives in this writ petition and may be closed.
2. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed.
3. The 1st petitioner is the Manager of a teachers training
institute and the 2nd petitioner is its Headmaster. The 5 th
respondent while working as a Training School Assistant in
Mathematics, was dismissed from service on 03.01.2000, on the
ground that she was convicted for having involved in a Visa fraud
case, promising to give employment. The trial court convicted the
5th respondent and since the Manager on being satisfied that the
continuance of a teacher convicted in a fake Visa case cannot be
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
permitted, dismissed her from service. The case was taken in
appeal before the Sessions Court and the order of the trial court
was confirmed. In revision, this Court by extending the benefit of
doubt, acquitted the accused, the 5 th respondent in this case. After
the acquittal, the 5th respondent claimed reinstatement and
approached this Court filing W.P.(C)No.8640/2008. She has also
approached the Government and the Government ordered to
reinstate her in service, which was challenged by the Manager in
W.P(C) No.28764/2009. It is the case of the petitioners that the
vacancy which arose consequent to the dismissal of the 5 th
respondent was filled up by the Manager after a period of one year
and appointment was approved by the educational authorities as
well and the subsequent vacancies which arose in the school were
filled up by the Manager in accordance with law, which was also
approved by the department without any reservation. Ultimately
both the writ petitions filed by the 1 st petitioner - Manager and the
5th respondent (W.P(C)Nos.8640/2008 and 28764/2009) were heard
by this Court and by Ext.P1 judgment dated 20.10.2017 disposed of
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
the same with a direction to the Government to create a
supernumerary post for accommodating the 5 th respondent, which
was issued taking note of Note 4 of Rule 56 B of Chapter VII of Part
I KSR. The Court while issuing Ext.P1 also took note of the fact
that the teacher appointed in the vacancy caused consequent to the
dismissal of the 5th respondent is continuing in the institute for the
last 17 years and that he cannot be displaced and only possible way
to accommodate the 5th respondent is by creating a supernumerary
post. The 5th respondent filed appeals before this Court and the
matter was considered by the Court and by Ext.P2 common
judgment both the appeals were dismissed. In Ext.P2 also, the
Division Bench of this Court had arrived at a finding that, the
provisions of Keraal Service Rules clearly applies to the factual
situation of the case and that since the teacher was dismissed from
service and she could not be reinstated within one year on account
of the conviction she was suffering during the relevant period, the
appointment of another person in that substantive vacancy cannot
be termed as provisional appointment and it has to be treated as a
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
permanent appointment. Thereafter the Deputy Director of
Education issued Ext.P3 letter to the Headmaster of the Training
Institute to make available the details regarding appointments,
etc., to which Ext.P4 reply was given by the Headmaster. While so
the 1st respondent issued Ext.P5 order dated 09.11.2020 directing
the 2nd respondent to take steps to create supernumerary post to
accommodate the 5th respondent and further held that on creation
of the supernumerary post, the financial commitment arising out of
such post creation shall be recovered from the Manager and the
teachers who were appointed to the vacancy caused consequent to
the dismissal of the 5 th respondent and also from the educational
officer who granted approval of appointment of the 2 nd petitioner,
who was appointed in the place of the 5 th respondent consequent
to her dismissal from service. The said order was challenged by the
1st petitioner filing W.P(C)No.2164/2021 and this Court was
pleased to issue an interim order staying Ext.P5 order. While so,
the Government issued a further order dated 24.05.2022, copy of
which is produced as Ext.P6, holding that there is no provision to
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
create a supernumerary post in aided school and that since there is
no post of Training School Assistant (Mathematics) available in the
school, and since the 5th respondent got the qualification of M.A
Sociology with B.Ed, she should be accommodated in the post of
Headmaster of the school, reverting the 2 nd petitioner and on
failure to do so, proceedings will be initiated against the Manager.
It is also submitted that Ext.P6 order was issued in terms of the
judgment issued in W.P(C) No.8640/2008. The petitioners would
contend that the 5th respondent was not in service right from
03.01.2000 onwards and after one year the 2 nd petitioner was
appointed, which was approved by the educational authorities as
well. The petitioners would further contend that the only direction
issued by this Court was to create a supernumerary post in the
cadre of Training School Assistant and the seniority in the school
depends upon the continuous service and not otherwise. The 2 nd
petitioner was appointed as a Training School Assistant on
10.01.2001 and promoted to the post of Headmaster on 01.04.2020
and this Court categorically held that the appointment of the 2 nd
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
petitioner as Training School Assistant shall not be touched and
only right given to the 5 th respondent is that a supernumerary post
is to be created to accommodate her. It is also contended that the
finding in the Government Order that if the 5 th respondent had
continued as a teacher, she could have been promoted as
Headmaster since the 2nd petitioner is junior to her in service is
also incorrect. While so the Government issued a fresh order,
produced as Ext.P7, recalling Ext.P6 order directing to revert the
2nd petitioner from the post of Headmaster and to appoint the 5 th
respondent in his place. It is contended that the issuance of Ext.P7
order by the Government without creating a supernumerary post is
absolutely without any basis as the directions issued by this Court
in Exts.P1 and P2 has become final. It is incumbent on the part of
the Government to create a supernumerary post, if they so desires
to accommodate the 5th respondent and that no supernumerary
post is created till date. It is further submitted that the 5 th
respondent was terminated from service in 2000 and she is not in
active service. Further, she was gainfully employed in another
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
Teachers Training Institute as Principal, ie., MOTTI, Perimbilavu,
Kunnamkulam as evident from Exts.P8 and P9. Without being in
any active service in the school under the 1 st respondent, she
cannot claim any seniority and that the criteria for reckoning
seniority is continuous service, going by Rule 37 of Chapter XIV A
KER. It is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order that the present writ petition
has been filed.
4. The above writ petition has been filed by the 5 th respondent
in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 seeking a direction to the 5 th
respondent - Manager herein to implement Ext.P6 order of
reinstatement within a time limit. The petitioner would contend
that since she was acquitted of all criminal charges, she is entitled
for reinstatement in service. Even though a direction was issued as
per Ext.P6, the Manager did not take any steps to implement the
same. The petitioner would submit that if she was permitted to
continue in service, she would have been promoted as
Headmistress as she is senior to the 2 nd petitioner in W.P.
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
(C)No.18201 of 2022. Only for the latches on the part of the 5 th
respondent Manager, the petitioner is put to serious prejudice as
no retirement benefits have been granted to her though she has
already attained the age of superannuation.
5. The Government have filed a detailed counter affidavit
wherein it is contended that while examining to create a
supernumerary post to accommodate the 5th respondent in W.P.
(C)No.18201 of 2022, existence of a vacancy of the Headmistress of
the school which arose on 31.03.2020 was noted and found that the
Manager has appointed the 2nd petitioner without considering the
claim of the 5th respondent. Since there existed one vacancy as on
01.04.2020 to accommodate the 5 th respondent without creating a
supernumerary post, Government issued a direction to the 1 st
respondent to reinstate the 5th respondent in the vacancy of
Headmistress. It is further contended that the 5th respondent was
dismissed from service by the Manager for the involvement in a
criminal case. Though the 5th respondent was acquitted from the
criminal case, the Manager was not willing to reinstate her. It is in
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
the said circumstances that the impugned order Ext.P7 was issued
and therefore no interference of this Court is called for.
6. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
7. The 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 (the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12745 of 2021) was dismissed from service
on 03.01.2000 consequent to her conviction in a criminal case.
Later she was acquitted by the revisional court by extending the
benefit of doubt. On a request made by the 5 th respondent, the
Government issued order directing to reinstate her in service,
which was challenged by the Manager filing W.P.(C)No.28764 of
2009. The said writ petition along with the writ petition filed by the
5th respondent as W.P.(C) No.8640 of 2008 seeking reinstatement
in service were heard together and disposed of as per Ext.P1
judgment. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment reads as follows:
"7. In the light of Note-4 as above, if the substantive vacancy now
being manned by a valid appointment, Smt.Soumini can be
reinstated in a supernumerary post to be created. The Manager's
case is that there is no other vacancy. Therefore, the order of the
Deputy Director of Education, which has been affirmed by the
Government can be implemented only by way of creating a
supernumerary post by accommodating Smt.Soumini. It is to be
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
noted that Sri.Unni K.P. and the teacher appointed in the vacancy
of Sri.Unni K.P. will be displaced if the order is given effect
without creating a supernumerary post to accommodate
Smt.Soumini. They were continuing for last more than 17 years.
The approval was given by the Department without any
reservation as to the claim of Smt.Soumini. In such circumstances,
the only possible way to accommodate Smt.Soumini is by creating
a supernumerary post. Thus, both the writ petitions are disposed
of by the following directions:
i. The decision of the Deputy Director Education to reinstate
Smt.Soumini which was affirmed by the Government shall be
implemented by creating a supernumerary post.
ii. Needful shall be done by the Government to implement the
order of reinstatement by creating a supernumerary post within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
iii. The claim for the service benefit of Smt.Soumini is left open."
(underline supplied)
This Court after hearing the rival contentions held that order of
reinstatement issued by the Government can be implemented only
by way of creating a supernumerary post to accommodate the 5 th
respondent. It is also found by this Court that the 2 nd petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022, who was appointed to the vacancy of the
5th respondent, will have to be displaced if the order is given effect
without creating a supernumerary post to accommodate the 5 th
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
respondent and that the 2nd petitioner is continuing in service for
more than 17 years and appointment was given by the Department
without any reservation as to the claim of the 5 th respondent. It is
taking note of these factual situation that the Court directed that
the only way to accommodate the 5th respondent is by creating a
supernumerary post and therefore, directed the Government to do
so. The appeals preferred by the 5 th respondent culminated in
Ext.P2 judgment. In Ext.P2 also there is a finding to the effect that
the 5th respondent who was dismissed from service could not be
reinstated within one year on account of conviction and therefore,
the appointment of another person in that substantive vacancy ie.,
the appointment of the 2nd petitioner, cannot be termed as a
provisional appointment and it has to be treated as a permanent
appointment. Holding so the Division Bench of this Court
confirmed the direction of the learned Single Judge in Ext.P1
judgment to create a supernumerary post to accommodate the 5 th
respondent. The Government ultimately issued Ext.P5 order
directing the 2nd respondent to create a supernumerary post to
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
accommodate the 5th respondent and further held that on creation
of the supernumerary post, the financial commitment arising out of
such post creation, shall be recovered from the Manager and the
teachers who were appointed to the vacancy caused consequent to
the dismissal of the 5 th respondent and also from the educational
officer who granted approval of appointment of the 2 nd petitioner
proportionately. Ext.P5 is issued in clear violation of Exts.P1 and
P2 judgments of this Court, wherein it was conclusively found that
the substantive vacancy is now being manned by valid appointment
and the 5th respondent can be reinstated only in a supernumerary
post to be created and that the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner to
a substantive vacancy cannot be treated as a provisional
appointment and it has to be treated as a permanent appointment.
The direction in Ext.P5 making the petitioners and the officer of
the Education Department liable for the financial commitment on
creating supernumerary post is clear violation of the directions and
findings in Exts.P1 and P2 judgments, which has become final.
Later Ext.P5 order was modified. The Government issued Ext.P6
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
holding that there is no provision to create a supernumerary post
in an aided school and the 5th respondent should be accommodated
to the post of Headmistress of the school reverting the 2 nd
petitioner and in failure to do so, proceedings should be issued
against the Manager. This Court is of the view that the finding that
there is no provision to create supernumerary post in an aided
school cannot be accepted, in the light of Exts.P1 and P2 wherein
this Court has issued orders to create supernumerary post to
accommodate the 5th respondent. The findings in Ext.P6 that there
is no provision to create supernumerary post in an aided school,
when Exts.P1 and P2 has become final, it is nothing but willful
violation of the directions issued by this Court. Later the
Government has passed Ext.P7 in the place of Ext.P6 order,
ordering to revert the 2 nd petitioner from the post of Headmaster
and appointing the 5th respondent in his place. I am of the opinion
that Exts.P5, P6 an P7 orders are issued not in accordance with the
findings and directions of this Court as per Exts.P1 and P2, which
has become final. The 5th respondent was dismissed from service in
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
2000 and a perusal of Exts.P8 and P9 would reveal that she has
been working as Principal from 2004 onwards in another Teacher
Training Institute, ie., MOTTI, Perimbilavu, Kunnamkulam. The
said aspect that the 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 was
gainfully employed is not stated by her in the writ petition filed by
her as W.P.(C)No.12745 of 2021. Admittedly the 5 th respondent has
attained the age of superannuation on 31st October 2022.
8. There is a specific finding in Exts.P1 and P2 to the effect
that the appointment of the 2nd petitioner is to a substantive
vacancy which is manned by a valid appointment and therefore the
5th respondent could be reinstated only if a supernumerary post is
created. There is a further finding in Ext.P1 that the 2 nd petitioner
and the teacher who is appointed in the place of the 2 nd petitioner
will have to be displaced if an order is given to reinstate the 5 th
respondent without creating supernumerary post, taking note of
the fact that the 2nd petitioner was continued for more than 17
years and the approval by the Department was without any
reservation as to the claim of the 5 th respondent. A similar view
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
was also taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P2
wherein a specific finding was entered into to the effect that the
appointment of the 2nd petitioner, which is to a substantive vacancy
cannot be treated as a provisional appointment and the
appointment has to be treated as a permanent appointment.
Admittedly the seniority is determined on the basis of Rule 37 of
Chapter XIV A KER. Rule 37 of Chapter XIV A KER mandates that
seniority of a teacher in any grade in any unit shall be decided with
reference to the length of continuous service in that grade in that
unit provided he is duly qualified for the post. After having issued
a specific direction to the Government in Exts.P1 and P2 to create a
supernumerary post to accommodate the 5 th respondent and in
defiance of the direction issued by this Court the Government by
the impugned orders directed reversion of the 2 nd petitioner from
the post of Headmaster and to which he was appointed taking into
consideration his seniority on the basis of Rule 37 of Chapter XIV A
KER, is nothing but clear violation of the direction issued by this
Court in Exts.P1 and P2 which has become final and therefore,
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
liable to be interfered with.
9. W.P.(C)No.12745 of 2021 is filed by the 5 th respondent in
W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 seeking implementation of Ext.P6 order.
Ext.P6 is an order issued by the District Educational Officer,
Chavakkad consequent to Ext.P5 order issued by the Government
which has been modified by subsequent Government Orders. In
view of the above I am of the opinion that the direction sought for
in the writ petition to implement Ext.P6 cannot be allowed. Though
this Court as per Exts.P1 and P2 directed the Government to create
a supernumerary post to accommodate the petitioner (the 5 th
respondent in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022), has not taken any action
for violation of the orders when the Government failed to create a
supernumerary post to accommodate the petitioner in spite of the
specific direction issued in Exts.P1 and P2, presumably for the
reason that the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere. It is
true that the Government was duty bound to create a
supernumerary post as directed in Exts.P1 and P2 and if the
Government is aggrieved by the same, they should have challenge
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
the same in appropriate proceedings. Having not done so, the stand
of the Government that the creation of the supernumerary post is
against the rules, cannot be accepted at all.
In view the above facts and circumstances the above writ
petitions are disposed of as follows:
1. Exts.P6, P7 orders in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 are set
aside.
2. W.P.(C)No.12745 of 2021 is dismissed.
3. The dismissal of W.P.(C)No.12745 of 2021 will not stand
in the way of the petitioner therein to initiate
proceedings to claim damages from the Government for
the loss, if any, caused to her due to the non-
implementation of the directions in Exts.P1 and P2
judgments.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2164/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NOS.8640/2008 AND W.P.(C) NO.28764/2009
DATED 20/10/2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 8/10/2020
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
HEADMASTER TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O.(MS)
NO.3044/2020/GED DATED 9/11/2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT
DATED 19/12/2020.
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12745/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
20.10.2017 IN WP(C) NO.8640/2008 AND
WP(C) NO.28764/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
6.2.2020 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1362/2018 AND
WRIT APPEAL NO.1068/2018 BY THE DIVISION
BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.9.2020
IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO.1312/2020 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.11.2020
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2021
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.B1/1838/2020/DDS DATED 2.3.2021 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER'S NOTICE DATED
9.4.2021 ISSUED BY PETITIONER.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/6/2001
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
5/6/2020 ISSUED IN THE OFFICIAL LETTER
HEAD BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
2025:KER:43634
W.P.(C). Nos.2164 & 12745 of 2021 and 18201 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18201/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN
NOS.8640/2008 W.P(C) AND W.P(C)
NO.28764/2009 DATED 20/10/2017
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT 6/2/2020 IN
W.A.NO.1068/2018 AND DATED CONNECTED
CASES
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8/10/2020
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE
HEADMASTER TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(MS)
NO.3044/2020/GED DATED 9/11/2020
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(RT) NO.
3138/2022/GEDN DATED 24/5/2022 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(RT) NO.
274/2023/GEDN DATED 12/1/2023 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION SOUGHT
BEFORE THE SCERT BY THE FIRST PETITIONER
DATED 17.01.2023
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT DATED 28.01.2023
