[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Abhijith M.K vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2026:KER:11276
1
OP(KAT)No.3 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 3 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDERDATED 04.12.2025 IN OA NO.782 OF 2021 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS 1, 2 AND 4:
1 ABHIJITH M.K,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SRI.KUNHIRAMAN M.K
DEMONSTRATOR IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT
POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, KASARAGODE, RESIDING AT 'ALAKA',
KALARIKANDY, MEPPAYUR PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673524
2 SANTHOSH G,AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SRI.GANAPATHI.C
PRESENTLY WORKING AT CENTRAL POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
VATTIYOORKKAVU, THIURVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT
'KARTHIKA', KARIMPINTHOTTAM, ARYANKAVU PO, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 691309
3 SUDHESH K.M.,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SRI.K.NARAYANANKUTTY
DEMONSTRATOR IN COMPUTER HARDWARE ENGINEERING,
PRESENTLY WORKING AT GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
PALAKKAD RESIDING AT 'SREELAKSHMI', EZHAKKAD POST,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678631
BY ADV SHRI.S.ANEESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 2 AND 3RD RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2026:KER:11276
2
OP(KAT)No.3 of 2026
2 DIRECTOR OR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PADMAVILASAM ROAD,
FORT PO, NALUMUKKU, PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695023
3 ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NELSON MANDELA MARG,
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110070
4 ANOOP K THOMAS,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SRI.K.T. THOMAS
INSTRUCTOR GRADE-II IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI
DISTRICT RESIDING AT KARIYILAKULATHU HOUSE, COMPAYAR
PO, COMPAYAR, IDUKKI, PIN - 685552
BY ADV SRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR, SC, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
SRI.A.J VARGHESE, SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
3.2.2026, THE COURT ON 11.2.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:11276
3
OP(KAT)No.3 of 2026
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicants 1, 2 and 4 in O.A.No.782 of 2021 on the file
of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the
'Tribunal' for short), filed this original petition invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P7 order dated 04.12.2025
passed by the Tribunal in that original application. For convenience
of reference, the parties are referred to in this judgment in their
status as they were before the Tribunal, unless otherwise stated.
2. Going by the pleadings in the original application, the
applicants are presently working as Demonstrator/instructor
Grade-II in Computer Engineering/Computer Hardware
Engineering under the Technical Education Department, and they
satisfactorily completed their period of probation. As per the
amended Special Rules, the method of appointment to the post of
Lecturer in Engineering/Technology in Class-C Polytechnics is (1)
by direct recruitment, (2) appointment by transfer from the
category of Instructor Grade-l in Engineering Colleges/ Workshop
Superintendent in Polytechnic Colleges/ Superintendents in
2026:KER:11276
Technical High Schools (according to seniority), (3) in the absence
of qualified candidates under item (2) above, by transfer from the
category of Instructor in Engineering/ Draftsman Grade-I Foreman
belonging to the branch of Engineering/ Technology in which the
vacancy exist, (4) in the absence of item(2) and (3) above, by
transfer from the category of Demonstrators/Draftsman Grade-ll/
Workshop instructor/ Instructor Grade-Il. The applicants state that
they fall under item (4) by transfer category under Category 2-
Lecturer in Engineering/ Technology under Class-C Polytechnics,
and they are eligible for by transfer appointment in the absence
of candidates for by transfer appointment in items (2) and (3)
category. 17 vacancies falling under the by-transfer category are
lying vacant from 22.01.2019 for want of qualified candidates in
items (2) and (3). Since the probation of the applicants was not
declared as on 22.01.2019, the 2nd respondent did not consider
the applicants for by transfer appointment against the above-
mentioned 17 vacancies existing on and from 22.01.2019. The
applicants state that their probation was declared with effect from
01.06.2019, 10.07.2019, 31.10.2020 and 20.02.2021,
respectively. Therefore, there is no legal hurdle in considering the
2026:KER:11276
applicants 1, 2 and 4 for by transfer appointment to the post of
Lecturer in Engineering/Technology. It is the contention of the
applicants that the method of recruitment continued to be
governed by the Kerala Technical Education Service Special Rules
as amended by Annexure A15 Kerala Technical Education Service
(Amendment) Special Rules, 2010. Further, in view of the
clarification issued by the All India Council for Technical Education
the faculty members who have already qualified or are likely to
qualify shortly under the existing Regulations can be given a
choice to them for being considered for promotion under the
existing Regulations within three years from the date of coming
into force of Annexure A25 Regulations, 2019, on 01.03.2019.
Moreover, without conceding that even if Annexure A25
Regulations, 2019 are applicable with effect from 01.03.2019, the
17 vacancies falling under the by transfer appointment quota
existed as on 22.01.2019 are to be filled up in accordance with
the Special Rules as amended by Annexure A15 read with
Annexure A28 AICTE Regulations, 2010. Hence, the applicants
filed the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:
2026:KER:11276
"(i) to call for the records leading to Annexure A35 and A36
and to set aside the same to the extent they did not include
the applicants 1 to 4 in Annexure A26;
(ii) to issue appropriate direction or order directing the
respondents to consider the candidature of the applicants 1
to 4 for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Computer
Engineering under Class C-Polytechnics in terms of the
Kerala Technical Education Service Special Rules, 1967 as
amended from time to time as against the 17 vacancies
existing with effect from 22.01.2019 and to promote them
to the post of Lecturer in Computer Engineering with effect
from the date of their entitlement with all consequential
benefits including arrears of pay and allowances
immediately and at any rate, within a time-frame that may
be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal".
2.1. In the original application, on behalf of the 1 st
respondent, a reply statement dated 20.11.2024 was filed
opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Annexures
R1(a) and R1(b) documents. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a
reply statement dated 20.09.2021 was filed, opposing the reliefs
sought for and producing therewith Annexure R2(a) document.
Similarly, on behalf of the 3rd respondent, a reply statement dated
19.10.2024 was filed contending that the original application is
devoid of merits. The applicants filed rejoinder statements dated
2026:KER:11276
08.02.2025 and 09.03.2023 to the reply statements.
2.2. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of
materials on record, the Tribunal, by Ext.P7 order, dismissed the
original application. Paragraphs 20, 21 and the last paragraph of
that order read thus:
"20. The learned Government Pleader, Adv. M. Rahul on the
other hand defended the non-inclusion of the applicants in
the list of by transfer appointment. He argued that the law
has been settled by a series of judgments; the judgment
Annexure A29 cannot be interpreted so as to appoint those
persons who gets qualified much after 01.03.2019. The
date of occurrence of vacancy is the relevant factor to be
considered and only those persons who were eligible by all
means alone could be considered for by transfer
appointment against vacancies which arose prior to
01.03.2019. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that
the applicants had not satisfactorily completed probation as
on 01.03.2019. After 01.03.2019, the Special Rules are not
in operation so far as method of recruitment is concerned.
The method of recruitment was changed as one of direct
recruitment by the AICTE Regulations, 2019 which governs
the field now. After the framing of 2019 Diploma
Regulations, the post of Lecturer in Computer Engineering
could be filled up only through direct recruitment. The
reliance placed on Note to Rule 28 (iA) of Part II KS&SSR is
totally misplaced as there is no Special Rules which provides
2026:KER:11276
for by transfer appointment after 01.03.2019. After
01.03.2019, it is not legally possible to fill up the post with
the person who becomes qualified much after 01.03.2019.
All the applicants completed their probation much after
01.03.2019 and they cannot claim promotion against a
vacancy to which the only mode of recruitment is direct
recruitment after 01.03.2019.
21. The claim of the applicants to the post of Lecturer in
Computer Engineering is based on the direction of the
Hon'ble High Court in Annexure A29 to fill up the vacancies
which arose prior to 01.03.2019 by applying the Special
Rules. All vacancies which arose after 01.03.2019 are
governed by AICTE Diploma Regulations, 2019 according to
which direct recruitment is the only method of recruitment.
The applicants claim could be entertained only against
vacancies which arose prior to 01.03.2019. Once it is shown
that life of the vacancy is extended beyond 01.03.2019,
that vacancy can be filled up only by direct recruitment.
Applicants cannot claim any right for getting any by transfer
appointment against a vacancy which arose prior to
01.03.2019 as they were not qualified in all means. None of
them had satisfactorily completed probation as on
01.03.2019 and their claim to the vacancy is based on Rule
28 (iA) of Part II KS&SSR. As rightly pointed out by the
learned Government Pleader, they are not governed by the
Special Rules and the method of recruitment provided
thereunder after 01.03.2019. All their claims are limited to
those vacancies which arose prior to 01.03.2019 and
2026:KER:11276
appointments which were made against those vacancies. In
that view of the matter, the applicants were not qualified for
consideration under the by transfer quota to any vacancy
that arose prior to 01.03.2019. After 01.03.2019 if at all a
vacancy remains unfilled that is governed only by AICTE
Diploma Regulations, 2019 which provides for direct
recruitment as the sole method of recruitment.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the Original
Application and accordingly the Original Application is
dismissed".
3. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the original
application, the applicants 1, 2 and 4 are now before this Court
with this original petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-
applicants 1, 2, and 4, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd
respondent All India Council for Technical Education ('AICTE' for
short) and the learned Senior Government Pleader. Considering
the nature of the reliefs sought in the original petition, issuance of
notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants
would submit that, as per Annexure A29 judgment dated
22.12.2020 in O.P.(KAT)No.542 of 2019 and connected matters,
this Court held that the vacancies in the post of Lecturers in
2026:KER:11276
Polytechnics that arose before 01.03.2019 can be filled up without
reference to the AICTE (Diploma) Regulations 2019. The vacancies
to which the applicants aspire arose before 01.03.2019, and
therefore, those vacancies ought to have been filled by promotion
without reference to the AICTE (Diploma) Regulations 2019.
Moreover, as per the All India Council for Technical Education Act,
1987, any Regulation framed by the AICTE ought to have been
placed before both Houses of Parliament before the stipulated
time. The same has not been done, and therefore, the Regulations
are ab initio void. For these reasons, the impugned order of the
Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader would submit that from the pleadings in the original
petition, it is clear that the applicants had not satisfactorily
completed probation as on 01.03.2019. Since the Special Rules
are not in operation after 01.03.2019, the applicants cannot claim
any right for by transfer appointment against the vacancy which
arose prior to 01.03.2019. There is no illegality in the impugned
order of the Tribunal.
7. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the
2026:KER:11276
power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under
clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall
have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
8. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd
[(2001) 8 SCC 97], the Apex Court held thus;
"The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction
by a High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India
is examined and explained in number of decisions of this
Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a
duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals
within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do
duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The
High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to
correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within
the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or
tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the
orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of
serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of
fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court
does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It
is also well settled that the High Court while acting under
this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court
or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the
subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent
on the fact of the record. The High Court can set aside or
2026:KER:11276
ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if
there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so
perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to
such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to."
(underline supplied)
9. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
[(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope
and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of
the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both
administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and
orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way
as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference
under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the
wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court.
10. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
[(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of
the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex
Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of
2026:KER:11276
the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate
courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the
powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The
High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they
act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The
exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised
constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to
correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting
within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can
be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice.
11. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in
exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order
of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent
perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to
it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
2026:KER:11276
12. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well
settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower
court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only
supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court.
Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal
has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
13. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within
the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under
Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or
2026:KER:11276
judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is
called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or
tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law
or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
14. The applicants who have been working as
Demonstrators in Computer Engineering under the Technical
Education Department are claiming by transfer appointment to the
post of Lecturer, placing reliance on the directions in Annexure A29
judgment of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.542 of 2019 and
connected matters. By Annexure A29 judgment a Division Bench
of this Court disposed of the original petitions directing the
competent authority to ensure that the vacancies in the post of
Lecturers in Technical streams in Polytechnics under the Technical
Education Department are to be filled up in accordance with the
stipulations in the Kerala Technical Education Service Rules, 1967,
2026:KER:11276
after its amendment through the Kerala Technical Education
Service (Amendment) Special Rules 2010 and any other
Regulation of the AICTE which was applicable at the relevant time
in respect of all vacancies which arose prior to 01.03.2019 and
further to ensure that all vacancies which arose in that post
(Lecturers in Technical streams in Polytechnics) after 01.03.2019
be filled up strictly in accordance with the stipulations in the
AICTE Regulations on pay scales, service conditions, and minimum
qualifications for appointment of Teachers in Technical Institutions
and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical
Education (Diploma) Regulation, 2019.
15. From the pleadings, as pointed out by the learned
Senior Government Pleader, it is evident that the applicants had
not satisfactorily completed probation as on 01.03.2019.
Therefore, applicants cannot claim any right for getting by transfer
appointment against the vacancy that arose prior to 01.03.2019,
since they were not qualified till that date. As found by the
Tribunal, when the life of the vacancy is extended beyond
01.03.2019, those vacancies can be filled only by direct
recruitment.
2026:KER:11276
16. In Annexure A29 judgment relied by the applicants
themselves, this Court held that the appointments to the
vacancies arising after 01.03.2019 be filled up strictly in
accordance with the AICTE (Diploma) Regulation, 2019. When the
applicants rely on one part of the direction in that judgment, they
cannot disown the other. They cannot approbate and reprobate
Annexure A29 judgment.
17. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submissions made at the Bar in the light of the
judgments referred to supra, we find no ground to hold that the
impugned Ext.P7 order of the Tribunal is perverse or illegal, which
warrants interference by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2026:KER:11276
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 3 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF ADVICE MEMO NO.
R1C(1)/26088/12/GW DATED 27-01-2017 ISSUED
TO THE 1ST APPLICANT
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF ADVICE MEMO NO.
R1C(1)/26088/12/GW DATED 27-01-2017 ISSUED
TO THE 2ND APPLICANT
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. EC4/45695/16/DTE
DATED 16-05-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. EC4/45695/16/DTE
DATED 05-05-2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. EC4/22170/19/DTE
DATED 16-09-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. EC4/27649/19/DTE
DATED 04-09-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF ADVICE MEMO NO.
R1C(1)/8659/2018/GW DATED 24-09-2018 ISSUED
TO THE 3RD APPLICANT
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. EC4/38637/18/DTE
DATED 22-10-2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. EC4/38367/18/DTE
DATED 11-07-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. EC4/28884/20/DTE
DATED 14-12-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF ADVICE MEMO NO.
R1C(1)/81/2019/GW DATED 28-01-2019 ISSUED TO
THE 4TH APPLICANT
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. EC4/4062/19/DTE
DATED 13-02-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. EC4/4062/19/DTE
DATED 19-11-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. EC4/8467/21/DTE
DATED 04-03-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO. 366/2010/H.EDN DATED
08-11-2010 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE
EXTRAORDINARY AS SRO NO. 1056/2010 DATED 16-
11-2010
Annexure A16 TRUE COPY OF DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 12-01-
2010 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
ISSUED TO THE 1ST APPLICANT
Annexure A17 TRUE COPY OF DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 18-03-
2010 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA TO
2026:KER:11276
THE 2ND APPLICANT
Annexure A17(a) TRUE COPY OF MASTERS DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED
11-01-2013 ISSUED BY THE MANONMANIAM
SUNDARANAR UNIVERSITY TO THE 2ND APPLICANT
Annexure A18 TRUE COPY OF DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 05-04-
2014 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
TO THE 3RD APPLICANT
Annexure A19 TRUE COPY OF DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 24-12-
2014 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO THE 4TH APPLICANT
Annexure A20 TRUE COPY OF MASTERS DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED
25-04-2017 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALICUT TO THE 4TH APPLICANT
Annexure A21 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 05-09-2019
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT
Annexure A22 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 15-10-2019 IN
RESPONSE TO ANNEXURE A-21
Annexure A23 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 20-01-2021
SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH APPLICANT UNDER THE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT TO ANNEXURE A-23
APPLICATION
Annexure A24 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 22-02-2021 ISSUED
BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN
RESPONSE TO ANNEXURE A-23
Annexure A25 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 01-03-2019
NOTIFYING THE AICTE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Annexure A26 TRUE COPY OF AICTE REGULATIONS ON PAY SCALES,
SERVICE CONDITIONS AND MINIMUM
QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS
AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF SUCH AS LIBRARY AND
PHYSICAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL, IN TECHNICAL
INSTITUTIONS AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE
OF STANDARDS IN TECHNICAL EDUCATION (DEGREE),
2019 DATED 01-03-2019
Annexure A27 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 20-05-2020
ISSUED BY THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL
EDUCATION
Annexure A28 TRUE COPY OF ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL
EDUCATION (PAY SCALES, SERVICE CONDITIONS AND
QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE TEACHERS AND OTHER
ACADEMIC STAFF IN TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS
(DIPLOMA)) REGULATIONS, 2010 PUBLISHED AS PER
NOTIFICATION DATED 05-03-2010
Annexure A29 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22-12-2020 IN
OP(KAT) NO. 542 OF 2019 AND CONNECTED CASES
2026:KER:11276
Annexure A30 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 27-01-2021
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT SUBMITTED
BY THE 2ND APPLICANT
Annexure A31 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE REPLY DATED 12-02-2021
TAKEN FROM THE OFFICIAL WEB-SITE OF NATIONAL
PORTAL OF INDIA
Annexure A32 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 18-09-2019
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT PREFERRED
BY SUMIKRISHNA K S
Annexure A33 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 27-09-2019 ISSUED
BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Annexure A34 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 01-02-2021
Annexure A35 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. EG1/1571/21/DTE
DATED 09-03-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A36 TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST IN RESPECT OF
COMPUTER ENGINEERING APPENDED TO ANNEXURE A35
CIRCULAR
Annexure A37 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST
APPLICANT DATED 15.03.2021
Annexure A38 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 699/2019/H.EDN DATED
03-05-2019
Annexure R-1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS).291/2022/HEDN DATED
10.06.2022
Annexure R-1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.75/2014/FIN DATED
20.02.2014
Annexure A39 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION
NO.EG1/1571/21/DTE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 26.10.2021
Annexure A40 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE NO.
F.NO.27/P&AP/PAY/01/2021-22/75(MAR.) ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06.08/09.2022
Annexure A41 TRUE COPY OF RTI REPLY ISSUED VIDES LETTER
NO. RTI-1/21051/22/D.T.E BY THE STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER ATTACHED TO OFFICE OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2022
Annexure A42 TRUE COPY OF RTI REPLY ISSUED VIDES LETTER
NO. F.NO.18-1/2021-TS-II BY THE CENTRAL
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, MINISTRY OF
EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
DATED 18.06.2021
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 782 OF 2021 ALONG
WITH ANNEXURES AND M.A FOR JOINING TOGETHER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
20-11-2024 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST
2026:KER:11276
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 20-
09-2021 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 19-10-2024
FILED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT DATED
08-02-2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT DATED
09-03-2023 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04-12-2025 IN
OA NO. 782 OF 2021.
