IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

&

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942

WA.No.1472 OF 2017

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 15688/2017 DATED 28-06-2017 OF

HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

SMITHA PAUL
W/O BAIJU, HEADMISTRESS A.M.UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
PUNNATHALA, (VIA) THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTON

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-69514

3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

THIRUR-676101

4 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

KUTTIPPURAM-679571.

5 MANAGER
A.M.UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL PUNNATHALA, (VIA) THIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:2:-

6 K.ALI
LPSA, A.M.UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PUNNATHALA,
(VIA) THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

R5 AND R6 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

R5 AND R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.SAJJAD
R1 TO R4 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.B.VINOD

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-02-

2020, ALONG WITH WA.1514/2017, THE COURT ON 20-05-2020
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:3:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

&

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942

WA.No.1514 OF 2017

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 18439/2017 DATED 28-06-2017 OF

HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/INTERESTED PARTY, NOT ARRAYED AS A RESPONDENT:

SMITHA PAUL
W/O.BAIJU, HEADMISTRESS, A.M.UPPER PRIMARY
SCHOOL, PUNNATHALA, (VIA) THIRUR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & PETITIONER IN WP(C):

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

MALAPPURAM-676505.

4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676101.
WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:4:-

5 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

KUTTIPPURAM-679571.

6 K.ALI
LPSA, A.M.UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PUNNATHALA,
(VIA) THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.SAJJAD
SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.B.VINOD

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-02-

2020, ALONG WITH WA.1472/2017, THE COURT ON 20-05-2020
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:5:-

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of May, 2020

Shaffique, J.

These two appeals have been filed by a teacher Smt.Smitha

Paul challenging common judgment dated 28.06.2017 in W.P.(C)

No. 15688/2017 and W.P.(C) No.18439/2017. She was the

petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15688/2017. She was not a party in W.P.

(C) No.18439/2017 and hence she filed W.A.1514 of 2017 after

seeking leave of the court. W.P.(C) No.18439/2017 was filed by

Sri.K.Ali for implementing an order in his favour. The controversy

related to the question as to whom among them was qualified to

be appointed as Headmaster in the school.

2. The short facts of the case are as under; and for easy

reference the documents are referred as exhibited in W.P.(C) No.

15688/2017, unless otherwise stated. Both Smt. Smitha Paul and

Sri. K.Ali were working in an aided Upper Primary school. A post of

Head Master became vacant on 21.04.2014 on retirement of one

Sri. K.P.Sreedharan. The Manager appointed Smt. Smitha Paul as

WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:6:-

Headmistress with effect from 1.5.2014. The Assistant

Educational Officer rejected the said proposal as she did not have

the requisite test qualification under the Kerala Education Act and

the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules,

2011. The Manager preferred an appeal which came to be

rejected as per order passed by the District Educational Officer

on 2/12/2015. Finally, the matter was taken up before the

Government and by order dated 18/2/2017 (Ext.P10), the

Government having observed that the qualification required for

promotion to the post of Headmaster being 12 years of teaching

experience and pass in Departmental Test and test of Kerala

Education Act and Rules, or having attained the age of 50 years,

since the appellant was only 44 years, she was not eligible to be

appointed. As far as Sri.K.Ali was concerned, it was found that

though he had completed 12 years' service and pass in Account

Test (Lower), he did not have the test qualification of KER. It was

found that Smt.Smitha Paul and Sri.K.Ali were not eligible. The

Manager therefore withdrew the order promoting Smt.Smitha Paul

as Headmistress on a finding that she did not have test

qualification and was not qualified for promotion as Headmistress

WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:7:-

on 1/5/2014. Consequently, Sri. K.Ali, being the senior most

teacher was appointed as Headmaster. Smt. Smitha Paul filed the

writ petition challenging the order passed by the Government and

other educational authorities inter alia contending that she

acquired the test qualification under Kerala Education Rules (KER)

on 4/7/2017. The writ petition was later amended challenging

Ext.P13 order dated 2/5/2017 passed by the Manager in

consequence of Ext.P10 order of the Government.

3. The main contention urged by Smt.Smitha Paul, was

that Sri.K.Ali though he had completed 12 years of service and

passed Account Test (Lower), he did not acquire the qualification

as prescribed under KER. Specific reference was made to Rule

18(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education

Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2011 Rules') to

indicate that a person to be employed as Headmaster ought to

have acquired the test qualification as prescribed under the KER.

In so far as Sri.K.Ali had only passed the Account Test (Lower), he

was not qualified to be appointed as Headmaster. Whereas she

became fully qualified for being appointed as Headmistress, on

WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:8:-

16/2/2015 by which date she passed the Account test as well as

the KER test.

4. Sri.K.Ali in the meantime filed W.P.(C) No.18439/2017

seeking to implement Ext.P13 order of the Manager and

challenging Government order dated 18/2/2017 (Ext.P10)

wherein there was a finding that in the absence of acquiring

qualification under the KER, he did not qualify to be appointed

as the Headmaster. He also sought for a direction to declare that

he is qualified for the post of Headmaster and also for a direction

to the 5th respondent to approve his promotion as Headmaster

with effect from 31/4/2014, the date of occurrence of vacancy

with all consequential benefits.

5. There is no dispute about the fact that Sri.K.Ali is the

senior-most teacher in the said school. The controversy is with

reference to the acquisition of test qualification under the KER.

The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment came to a

finding that Sri.K.Ali was qualified to be appointed as

Headmaster at the time when the vacancy arose and therefore

the action of the Manager was not illegal. However, it was

WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:9:-

observed that Sri.K.Ali cannot claim appointment from the date

when the vacancy had arisen and his appointment can be

effective only from 2/5/2017. A direction was therefore issued to

the Assistant Educational Officer to pass orders on the proposal

for his promotion as Headmaster w.e.f. 2/5/2017.

6. The main contention urged by the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant is based on Rule 18(1) of the 2011

Rules. Rule 18(1) reads as under:-

“18. Duties to be performed by Head Teacher and Teachers:-

(1) The Head Teacher shall be a person having a minimum of
twelve years of teaching experience and possessing pass in
such departmental tests and test on Kerala Education Act and
Rules as may be specified in that regard. Provided that
teachers in service shall be given time upto three years to pass

the above tests”.

7. As per Rule 18(1) of 2011 Rules, a Head Teacher

should have a minimum of twelve years of teaching experience

and possess pass in Departmental Test and Test on Kerala

Education Act and Rules “as may be specified in that regard”. As

per Rule 44 of Chapter XIVA Kerala Education Rules (KER), the

appointment of Headmaster shall ordinarily be according to

WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:10:-

seniority from the seniority list prepared in accordance with the

rules. Rule 45B further provides that notwithstanding anything

contained in Rules 45 and 45A, Account Test (Lower) conducted

by the Kerala Public Service Commission shall be an obligatory

qualification to the teachers for promotion as Headmasters of

Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools.

8. The contention urged by the appellant is that Sri.K.Ali

had not passed the test under KER as contemplated under Rule

18 of the 2011 Rules. Reference is made to a Division Bench

judgment of this Court in Saju Cherian & another v. Baby

Paily & Others (O.P.(KAT) No.259/2019) decided on 27/1/2020.

The question considered in the said case was whether the test

qualification specified in Rule 18(1) of the 2011 Rules is

mandatory even for teachers who have completed the age of 50

years. After evaluating the respective contentions of the parties

and after referring to the Government Order dated 6/3/2018

(Annexure A6), the Division Bench held at paragraphs 12 and 13

as follows:

“12. When three years time is provided for acquisition of test

qualification, the proviso also has to be given due effect. Our
WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:11:-

interpretation would be that when the Rule specifically

provides for test qualifications, there can be no
appointment/promotion made of persons who are not
qualified in accordance with the Rule. Hence, after the
specification made at Annexure A6, only persons who are
test qualified can be considered for promotion and be
included for selection. The unqualified senior teachers would
be entitled to appear for the test and acquire the test
qualifications within three years. On acquiring such
qualification if any junior has been promoted earlier, within
the three year period, the senior who qualified within that
period would be entitled to seek promotion as Head Teacher
on the basis only of his/her subsequent qualification within
the three year period. In that circumstance the junior has to
be reverted and the senior promoted as Head Teacher. The
pay drawn by the Junior in the post of Head Teacher, in the
interregnum would be his entitlement and the senior would
be entitled to the higher pay and allowances, if at all there is
any in the post of Head Teacher, only from his/her date of
promotion.

13. Otherwise, when an unqualified person is posted

as Head Teacher and he/she does not qualify within the
three year period or before his retirement which may occur
within the three year period, the junior qualified teacher
would be prejudiced insofar as not being given the higher
post or the benefits attached to that post despite his
satisfying every qualification as provided in the Rule. The
unqualified senior would also get an unfair advantage of
retiring with the higher pay, which is not intended by the
proviso. On the other hand, if the senior acquires the test
qualifications within the period, the junior who is also
WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:12:-

qualified can raise no objection on his senior being then

posted as Head Teacher on acquisition of qualification. The
proviso only enables a teacher to acquire the qualification
within three years and seek for the post of Head Teacher on
acquiring the test qualification. It does not enable the State
to make appointments in violation of the rule, by promoting
a senior who is not qualified in accordance with the Rule. On
such interpretation, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal's
order has to be set aside to the extent it permits inclusion of
unqualified persons above 50 years for the purpose of
promotion. The age of 50 years as provided in Annexure A2
has no significance, since the exemption has been set aside
and the benefit now available is only of that provided in the
proviso to the rule. Even senior teachers below 50 years who
are not qualified would not be entitled to be promoted, but
they will have the benefit of the proviso if they acquire the
qualification within three years. This benefit, teachers under
50 did not have, but will now be conceded with, by virtue of
the proviso to Rule 18(1). We make it clear that the proviso
has application only for three years from Annexure A6.
Necessarily the promotions already made are to be re-
worked according to our interpretation”.

9. Apparently, the issue projected in the present case had

not been considered by the Division Bench in Saju Cherian

(supra). The Division Bench was considering the question relating

to an appointment of a teacher as Headmaster when a fully

qualified teacher was available. The question was whether an

unqualified senior teacher could be promoted as Headmaster and

WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:13:-

thereafter acquire the test qualification within three years. The

said judgment related to the interpretation of proviso to Section

18(1) and the consequences that may arise after 6.3.2018. The

judgment did not consider the question as to the qualification

that was required for appointment of a Headmaster with

reference to the L.P. and U.P. Schools, prior to 6/3/2018. In fact,

the controversy was at rest by the Government in its order dated

19/2/2018 in G.O.(MS) No.16/18/G.Edn., wherein it was decided

to amend KER and to incorporate in Rule 45B that Headmasters

in L.P. and U.P.Schools should also pass the test specified in

Kerala Education Act and Rules. The said Government Order is

extracted hereunder:-

“ORDER

At present, promotion to the cadre of HM in Aided Primary

Schools is being done as per Rule 45 B of KER Chapter XIV A.
The qualifications prescribed for the promotion therein is a pass
in Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service
Commission. Government vide order read as 1 st paper above
have introduced the Kerala Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 and wherein the qualification
for a Head Teacher is stipulated in Rule 18 (1) as having a
minimum of twelve years of teaching experience and possessing
pass in such departmental tests and test on Kerala Education Act
WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:14:-

and Rules as may be specified in that regard. But no such

notification has been issued so far.

(2).The Kerala Administrative Tribunal has pronounced in

OA read as 2nd paper that a notification as contemplated in Rule
18(1) of the RTE Rules specifying the Department Test and Test on
KEA and Rules to be passed for promotion to the post of Head
Teacher in Primary Schools should be passed within three months.

(3).The matter was examined in detail. Promotions to the

cadre of HM in Primary Schools are being made as per the Rule
45B of Chapter XIV A KER and the provisos thereunder.
Therefore inclusion of any additional qualification for promotion
to the cadre of Primary HM can be promptly met if provision for
the same is added in that Rule of KER. In the circumstances,
qualification stipulated in Rule 45 B (1) of Chapter XIV A of KER
is hereby amended to the following extent:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 45 and 45A,

Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service
Commission with a pass in the test in KE Act and the KE rules
shall be obligatory qualification to the teachers for promotion as
HMs of LP and UP Schools".

Necessary statutory amendments, in KER will be made

separately.”

10. The learned Government Pleader however had made a

submission that the words “as may be specified in that regard”

coming under Rule 18(1) in the Rules is not confined to the

qualifications as specified in the KER, whereas it only gives an

indication to the nature of test that is being conducted under the

WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:15:-

Kerala Education Act and Rules. But it is clear from the

Government Order dated 19/2/2018 that the Government

understood it in a different manner, and had thought of making

an amendment to Rule 45B of Chapter XIV A of KER by

incorporating an additional qualification to teachers being

appointed as Headmaster of L.P. and U.P. Schools, that they

should have the test qualification as prescribed under the Kerala

Education Act and Rules. That apart, in a judgment dated

24/6/2014 in Krishnan K.K. Vs. State of Kerala and Others

in W.P.(C) No.14971/2014, a learned Single Judge of this Court

had occasion to consider Rule 18(1) of 2011 Rules and it was

held at paragraphs 4 and 5 as under:

“4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. I have also gone
through the pleadings and the materials on record. Rule 45(B) of
Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education rules stipulates that a pass in
Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service
Commission shall be an obligatory qualification for promotion as
Headmasters of Lower Primary Schools and Upper Primary
Schools. Sub rule (4) stipulates that teachers who have attained
the age of 50 years shall stand permanently exempted from
acquiring the qualifications specified in sub rule (1). By virtue of
operation of sub rule (4) of rule 45(B) of Chapter XIV-A of the
WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:16:-

Kerala Education Rules teachers like the party respondents herein

who are aged 50 years are permanently exempted from passing
the Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service
Commission. The Government have by the impugned order
exempted the teachers who have completed the age of 50 years
from possessing the qualification prescribed in rule 18(1) of the
rules. Rule 18(1) of the rules does not in express terms stipulate
that the Head Teacher shall be a person possessing a pass in a
particular departmental test. It does not also in express terms
stipulate that the Head Teacher should possess a pass in the
Kerala Education Act and rules. On the other hand the stipulation
in the rules is to the effect that a Head Teacher shall be a person
possessing a pass in such departmental test and test on Kerala
Education Act and rules “as may be specified in that regard”. If the
words “as may be specified in that regard” had not been there in
rule 18(1), the rules will then be prescribing the test qualifications.
The Government did not when it framed the rules prescribe the
test qualifications. The Government only stipulated in rule 18(1) of
the rules that the Head Teacher shall possess a pass in such
departmental test and test on Kerala Education Act and rules as
may be specified in that regard. The petitioner has no case the
Government have by a notification specified that a Head Teacher
governed by rule 18(1) shall posses a pass in a particular
departmental test or the test on Kerala Education Act and rules.

5. In the absence of a notification specifying the

departmental tests and also specifying a pass in the test on Kerala
Education Act and rules as a qualification for appointment as Head
Teacher, I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the
petitioners that the impugned order is ultra vires the rules. The
Government in my opinion misdirected itself when it issued the
Government order dated 19.6.2004 and exempted the teachers
WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:17:-

who have attained the age of 50 years from possessing the

qualifications prescribed in rule 18 (1) of the rules. The
Government lost sight of the fact that under the rules it had to
specify the tests which a person aspiring to be appointed as Head
Teacher should possess. If the expression “as may be specified in
that regard” is taken to mean the prescription in the Kerala
Education Rules, then also I am of the opinion that there is no
merit in the challenge to the impugned orders. Rule 44 (A) of
Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education rules stipulates that the
Headmaster of an aided complete High School should possess a
pass in the test on Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education rules
and a pass in the Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala
Public Service Commission. Teachers who attain the age of 50
years are permanently exempted from acquiring the aforesaid
qualifications. In the case of Headmasters of Lower Primary
Schools, the stipulation in rule 45(B) of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala
Education rules is to the effect that they should possess a pass in
the Account Test (Lower). Teachers who attain the age of 50 years
are permanently exempted from acquiring the said qualification. In
such circumstances, in the absence of a separate notification by
the State Government specifying the tests which a teacher
aspiring to be appointed as Head Teacher should possess, I am of
the opinion that no exception can be taken to the appointment of
the party respondents.”

11. There is no dispute to the fact that Rule 18(1) covers all

the head teachers in any type of schools. But when it was

specifically stated that they should possess a pass in such

departmental test and test on Kerala Education Act and Rules as

WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:18:-

may be specified in that regard, necessarily the provisions of KER

relating to the qualification also requires to be considered while

evaluating the rule with reference to the words “as may be

specified in that regard”. The Government in fact considered this

issue based on an order passed by the Kerala Administrative

Tribunal which finally resulted in Government order dated

19/2/2018. Once it is specified by the said Government order that

the qualification stipulated under Rule 45B (1) should also contain

the provisions for passing the departmental test, we have to

proceed on the basis that until then, there was no such

specification. However, in Ext.P10 order dated 18/2/2017, the

Government arrived at a conclusion that Sri.K.Ali was not

qualified since he had not acquired the KER qualification. The KER

qualification at the relevant time was only a pass in Account Test

(Lower).

12. Though the amendment has not come into effect, the

Government Order dated 19/2/2018 can be treated as sufficient

enough to ensure that Government had given clear specification

regarding the acquisition of qualification for Head Teacher of L.P.

as well as U.P. schools.

WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:19:-

13. In Saju Cherian's case (supra), the Division Bench

was considering the impact of Rule 18(1) and its proviso where

three years' time was granted to a teacher for acquiring the test

qualification. In fact, in paragraph 4 of the said judgment, the

Division Bench observed that “it is an admitted fact that by

Annexure A6 dated 6/3/2018, the Government has prescribed

that the Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public

Service Commission ('PSC' for brevity) and a pass in the test in

Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education Rules would be

obligatory qualification for promotion of teachers as Headmasters

of LP and UP Schools. Hence, as of now, there is a specification

of the test qualifications required for promotion to the post of

Head Teacher and the exemption granted is in conflict with the

Rule. The Tribunal held so and we agree with the Tribunal.” By

Annexure 6 order dated 6/3/2018, Government order dated

19/2/2018 was made applicable to Government L.P. and U.P.

Schools as well.

14 The present is a case in which the vacancy had arisen

on 21/4/2014 on retirement of one Sri.K.P.Sreedharan. At the

relevant time, Smt.Smitha Paul was not eligible to be appointed

WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:20:-

as Headmistress whereas Sri.K.Ali, was the senior most teacher

and had completed 12 year service and pass in Account Test

(Lower). Smt.Smitha Paul acquired the test qualification only on

16/2/2015. Once a qualified teacher was available, the Manager

could not have appointed any other person. Rule 18(1) of the

2011 Rules, only indicate that a teacher to be appointed as Head

Teacher should have 12 years of teaching experience and possess

pass in such departmental test and test on Kerala Education Act

and Rules as may be specified in that regard. A learned Single

Judge in Krishnan K.K.'s case (supra) had occasion to consider

what exactly is the meaning of the words “as specified in that

regard” and it was held that in the absence of a notification

specifying the departmental test and also specifying a pass in the

test on Kerala Education Act and Rules as a qualification for

appointment as Head Teacher, it cannot be stated that Rule 18(1)

of the 2011 Rules contemplate acquisition of test qualifications

mentioned for Head Teachers of High Schools and Training

Schools, as provided under Rule 44B of Chapter XIV A of KER.

When it is not in dispute that Smt.Smitha Paul had acquired the

requisite test qualification only after the vacancy had arisen on

WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:21:-

1/5/2014, in which event, going by the qualification of

Headmaster during the relevant time as provided under Rule 45B

of Chapter XIVA of KER, Sri.K.Ali ought to have been appointed.

Going by the above discussion, even as on 2/5/2017, Sri.K.Ali was

qualified, as the proposal to amend the qualification of L.P./U.P

school Headmaster had come into effect only on 19/2/2018.

In the result, we do not find any reason to interfere with the

judgment of the learned Single Judge. Appeals are therefore

dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH

Rp JUDGE
WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:22:-

APPENDIX OF WA NO.1472/2017
APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.1.2016

ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTERS
FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, JULY AND AUGUST
2017.
ANNEXURE R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.7.2017
OF THE MANAGER ADDRESSED TO THE AEO.
ANNEXURE R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.7.2017
OF THE MANAGER ADDRESSED TO THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR.
ANNEXURE R5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.7.2017
ADDRESSED TO THE APPELLANT BY THE
MANAGER.
ANNEXURE R5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.5.2014
OF SRI.K.ALI 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE
MANAGER.
ANNEXURE R5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.3.2015
OF SRI.K.ALI ADDRESSED TO THE MANAGER.
ANNEXURE R5(g) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.8.2015
OF SRI.K.ALI ADDRESSED TO THE MANAGER.
ANNEXURE R5(h) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
23.6.2016 OF SRI.K.ALI TO THE ASSISTANT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND THE ENDORSEMENT
THEREOF.
ANNEXURE R5(i) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA
NO.1900/2014 DATED 25.6.2015.
ANNEXURE R5(j) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA
NO.1097/2014 DATED 11.1.2016.
ANNEXURE R5(k) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA
NO.775/2017 DATED 11.4.2017.
WA Nos.1472 & 1514/2017

-:23:-