Kerala High Court
Ajal Ramakrishnan vs Athira I.C on 8 July, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2026:KER:48800
1
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
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 8TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1948
OP(KAT) NO. 152 OF 2021
AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 09.12.2019 IN OA NO.1578 OF
2019 AND COMMON ORDER DATED 28.04.2021 IN RA. No.4 of 2021 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/REVIEW APPLICANTS IN RA:
1 AJAL RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,
WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR, TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL,
VANNAPURAM, IDUKKI - 685 607, RESIDING AT CHENNATTU
HOUSE, VANNAPURAM P.O., IDUKKI - 685 607.
2 GILEESH V.V., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.VALSAN V.S., WORKSHOP
INSTRUCTOR, G.H.S.S.CHERANALLOOR, KOOVAPPADY,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 544 RESIDING AT VADASSERY
HOUSE, V.P.THURUTH, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O., N.PARAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM - 683 512.
3 MANEESH C.C., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.K.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN,
WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR, G.H.S.S.NEDUVELI, KONCHIRA P.O.,
VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 615.
4 ALI AKBAR E.T., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.MUSTHAFA,
INSTRUCTOR GRADE II, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, WEST
HILL, KOZHIKODE - 673 005, RESIDING AT VEERAKULATH
HOUSE, THURAKKAL P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM - 673 638.
5 SHEFY YOOSEF, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.YOOSEF SULAIMAN
DEMONSTRATOR IN ELECTRONICS, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC
COLLEGE, VECHOOCHIRA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 686 511
RESIDING AT OMANNIL HOUSE, CHATHANTHARA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA - 686 510.
2026:KER:48800
2
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR
SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ATHIRA I.C., AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.CHANDRASEKHRAN, RANK
HOLDER NO.54 IN RANK LIST NO.603/18/SSVII DATED
17/08/2018, RESIDING AT INDEEVARAM, PADINJATTIL,
KEEZHTHONNAKKAL, PUTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
584.
2 JITHIN J.S., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.JAYAN, RANK HOLDER
NO.1 IN SUPPLEMENTARY RANK LIST (HINDU NADAR) IN RANK
LIST NO.603/18/SSVII DATED 17/08/2018 RESIDING AT
59/930, SREE BHAVAN, KUTHIRAVATTOM, VENGANNOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 523.
3 LIJU RAJ T., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.RAJU J., RANK HOLDER
NO.1 IN SUPPLEMENTARY RANK LIST (LATIN CATHOLIC/ANGLO
INDIAN) IN RANK LIST NO.104/19/SSVII DATED 08/02/2019
RESIDING AT THEKKE NAGANEZHATH, ERAMALLOOR P.O.,
EZHUPUNNA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 537.
4 UNNIKUTTAN C., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.CHIDAMABARAN, RANK
HOLDER NO.77 IN RANK LIST NO.104/19/SSVII DATED
08/02/2019 RESIDING AT LALITHALAYAM, VARANAD P.O.,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 539.
5 VEENA MARY, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.YESUDAS, RANK HOLDER
NO.3 IN SUPPLEMENTARY RANK LIST (LATIN CATHOLIC/ANGLO
INDIAN) IN RANK LIST NO.1154/17/SIV DATED 13/12/2017
RESIDING AT LOORDU VILASAM, MARTHRA P.O., KARAVALOOR,
PUNALUR - 691 333.
6 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
7 HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HIGHER
EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
- 695 001.
8 FINANCE DEPARTMENT , GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2026:KER:48800
3
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
9 DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
PADMAVILASOM STREET, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 023.
10 ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NELSON MANDELA MARG,
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI - 110 070.
11 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.
12 THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
13 SUJITH KUMAR K.V., AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.S.KESAVAN ASHAN, RESIDING AT SAROVARAM, VENKAVILA,
IRINCHAYAM P.O., NEDUMAMGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
561 PRESENTLY WORKING AS WORKSHOP INTRUCTOR,
GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM -
686 502.
14 KIRAN K.S., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN G., DWARAKA,
KUDUMBANOOR, PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 020 PRESENTLY WORKING AS
WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
NEDUMANGAD - 695 541.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAGHUL SUDHEESH
SRI.K.J.GLAXON
SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
SMT.J.LAKSHMI
SHRI.AMAL JEES ALEX
ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
SMT.SABEENA P. ISMAIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, SENIOR G.P.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
SRI.A.J VARGHESE, SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
05.06.2026 ALONG WITH OP(KAT) No.154 of 2021, THE COURT ON
08.07.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:48800
4
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
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 8TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1948
OP(KAT) NO. 154 OF 2021
AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 09.12.2019 IN OA NO.1417 OF
2019 AND COMMON ORDER DATED 28.04.2021 IN RA. No.5 of 2021 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/REVIEW APPLICANTS IN R.A:
1 AJAL RAMAKRISNAN,AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,
WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR, TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL,VANNAPURAM,
IDUKKI - 685 607 RESIDING AT CHENNATTU HOUSE,
VANNAPURAM P.O., IDUKKI - 685607.
2 GILEESH V.V.,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.VALSAN V.S., WORKSHIP
INSTRUCTOR, G.H.S.S.CHERANALLOOR, KOOVAPPADY,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 544 RESIDING AT VADASSERY
HOUSE, V.P.THURUTH, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O., N.PARAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM - 683512.
3 MANEESH C.C.,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.K.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN,
WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR, G.H.S.S.NEDUVELI, KONCHIRA P.O.,
VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695615.
4 ALI AKBAR E.T.,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.MUSTHAFA, INSTRUCTOR
GRADE II, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING,
GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE -
673005 RESIDING AT VEERAKULATH HOUSE, THURAKKAL P.O.,
KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM - 673638.
5 SHEFY YOOSEF,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.YOOSEF SULAIMAN
DEMONSTRATOR IN ELECTRONICS, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC
COLLEGE, VECHOOCHIRA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 686 511
RESIDING AT OMANNIL HOUE, CHATHANTHARA P.O.,
2026:KER:48800
5
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
PATHANAMTHITTA - 686510.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR
SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT IN RA:
1 VINOD M.S.,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SIVAKUMAR K.S., RANK
HOOLDER NO.73 IN RANK LIST NO.874/2016/SSVII DATED
30/12/2016 RESIDING AT KRISHNAKRIPA, SARKARA,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 304.
2 ABHIROOP V.M.,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.J.VIJAYAKUMAR, RANK
HOLDER NO.3 IN SUPPLEMENTARY RANK LIST (LATIN
CATHOLICS/ANGLO INDIAN) IN RANK LIST NO.874/2016/SSVII
DATED 30/12/2016 RESIDING AT DELIGHT, MVC-46 TC
11/582-1, MUSEUM BAINS COMPOUND, KOWDIAR - 695003.
3 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
4 HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HIGHER
EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
- 695001.
5 FINANCE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
6 DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
PADMAVILASOM STREET, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 023.
7 ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NELSON MANDELA MARG,
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI - 110070.
8 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.
9 THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.
10 SUJITH KUMAR K.V.,AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.S.KESAVAN ASHAN,
2026:KER:48800
6
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
RESIDING AT SAROVARAM, VENKAVILA, IRINCHAYAM P.O.,
NEDUMAMGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 561 PRESENTLY
WORKING AS WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR, GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL
HIGH SCHOOL, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM - 686 502.
11 KIRAN K.S.,AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN G., DWARAKA,
KUDUMBANOOR, PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695020 PRESENTLY WORKING AS
WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
NEDUMANGAD - 695541.
12 ADDL R12 SATHEESH P.K. ,S/O. P.C. KOCHAPPU, AGED 48
YEARS, DEMONSTRATOR IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, GPTC,
KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683104, RESIDING AT
PANANGATHATTIL HOUSE, MELOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-
680 311
13 ADDL R 13 PRAJEESH V.V, AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O.BALAKRISHNAN V.V,INSTRUCTOR GRADE-II IN MECHANICAL
ENGINEERING GOVT.ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN-670563, RESIDING AT PRASAD NIVAS, KIRACHI, VENGAD
P.O, PIN-670612, KANNUR DISTRICT.
14 ADDL R 14 MANOJ T.P, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN T.P,
ENGINEERING INSTRUCTOR, TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL,
THOTTADA, KANNUR, PIN-670007, RESIDING AT MALU'S
KANDANGALI PO, PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670307
[ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITONAL RESPONDENTS 12 TO 14 AS
PER ORDER DATED 28/01/2025 IN IA 2/2024 IN OP(KAT)
154/2021]
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAGHUL SUDHEESH
SRI.K.J.GLAXON
SHRI.SAJITH KUMAR V., SC, ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION - AICTE
SMT.J.LAKSHMI
SHRI.AMAL JEES ALEX
SHRI.P.M.JOSEPH
SHRI.P.S.SAJEEV (CHIRAYIL)
SMT.ASWANI V. DEV
SRI.A.J VARGHESE, SR.G.P
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
05.06.2026 ALONG WITH OP(KAT) No.152 of 2021, THE COURT ON
08.07.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:48800
7
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
O.P.(KAT)No.152 of 2021 is filed by the review applicants in
R.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.A.No.1578 of 2019 and O.P.(KAT) No.154
of 2021 is filed by the review applicants in R.A.No.5 of 2021 in
O.A.No.1417 of 2019 on the file of the Kerala Administrative
Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for short), invoking
the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the common order dated
09.12.2019 passed by the Tribunal in those original applications
as well as the common order dated 28.04.2021 passed by the
Tribunal in the review applications. For convenience of reference,
the parties and documents are referred to in this judgment as
they are referred to in the common order dated 09.12.2019
passed by the Tribunal in the original applications, unless
otherwise stated.
2. The applicants in the original applications are candidates
included in Annexure A1 ranked list dated 30.12.2016 produced
in O.A.No.1417 of 2019 and Annexures A1, A2 and A3 ranked lists
produced in O.A.No.1578 of 2019, for the post of Lecturer in
2026:KER:48800
8
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
different branches of Engineering in the Polytechnic Colleges under
the Technical Education Department. When the authorities had
taken steps to fill up some vacancies of Lecturers, following the
ratio of 13:7 in respect of direct recruitment and by transfer
appointment, the applicants approached the Tribunal with the
original applications filed under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, contending that as per the revised AICTE
Regulations notified on 01.03.2019, the vacancies have to be
filled up exclusively through direct recruitment. In the original
applications, the applicants sought a direction against the
Directorate of Technical Education to stop all appointments by way
of by transfer promotion to the post of Lecturer in Mechanical
Engineering (Polytechnics); a direction against the Directorate of
Technical Education to report all vacancies to the Kerala Public
Service Commission (‘KPSC’ for short) to make appointment to the
post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering (Polytechnics); and a
declaration that all appointments to the post of Lecturer
(Polytechnics) and Head of Department (Polytechnics) can be
made only by direct recruitment as mandated by the AICTE norms.
2.1. In the original applications, on behalf of the Finance
2026:KER:48800
9
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
Department and the Directorate of Technical Education, separate
reply statements were filed, opposing the reliefs sought for. For
better understanding the contentions taken by those respondents
in the original applications, we extract the relevant portions of the
reply statements filed in O.P.(KAT)No.154 of 2021. Paragraphs 4
to 9 of the reply statement dated 30.10.2019 filed on behalf of
the Finance Department read thus;
“4. AICTE scheme was implemented in Government and
aided polytechnic colleges in the State with effect from
01.07.2013 as per G.O.(Ms)No.75/2014/Fin dated
20.02.2014 (Annexure A3) issued in tune with 6th AICTE
scheme.
5. As per G.O.(Ms)No.210/2013/H.Edn dated 30.05.2013
(Annexure A2) of Higher Education (L) Department,
Government have decided in principle to implement AICTE
scheme to qualified teaching faculties in Government and
Aided Polytechnic Colleges on the basis of norms prescribed
by AICTE and Finance (PRC) Department was entrusted to
issue detailed and comprehensive orders in this regard.
6. As per G.O.(Ms)No.75/2014/Fin dated 20.02.2014,
Government issued detailed guidelines on implementation
of AICTE scheme in Government and Aided Polytechnic
Colleges with effect from 01.07.2013.
7. As per Notification F.No.37-3/Legal/2010 dated
05.03.2010, AICTE has issued Pay scales, service conditions
and qualifications for the teachers and other academic staff
2026:KER:48800
10
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021in Diploma level technical institutions on the basis of 6th
CPC. Based on this notification, Government of Kerala
implemented 6th AICTE scheme to faculties in Government
and Aided polytechnics for the first time vide
G.O.(Ms)No.75/2014/Fin dated 20.02.2014 w.e.f
01.07.2013 (Annexure A3). As per this G.O, 6th AICTE
scheme was made applicable to those Lecturers, Head of
Departments and Principals in Engineering Subjects, in
Government and Aided Polytechnic colleges and the
teaching faculties in non-Engineering subjects in Aided
Polytechnic colleges, who are fully qualified as per AICTE
norms. In the above Government Order, it has only been
specified that all direct recruitments to the cadre of Lecturer,
Head of Department and Principal in the subjects covered
under AICTE scheme, from the date of the order will deemed
to be in AICTE scheme and such candidates must possess
all qualifications prescribed by AICTE. The mode of
recruitment to the post of Lecturer (Technical & Non-
Technical), i.e. whether by-transfer/direct recruitment, has
not been described in the above Government Order.
8. As per Notification F.No.61-1/RIDF/7th CPC/2016-17
dated 01.03.2019 , AICTE has issued regulations on Pay
scales, service conditions and minimum qualifications for
the teachers and other academic staff in Diploma level
technical institutions on the basis of 7th CPC (Annexure A4).
As per this scheme “Lecturer & Principals in Polytechnics”
can be recruited either by Direct or by promotion and Head
of Department can be recruited by Direct recruitment. But
Government of Kerala have not yet implemented the AICTE
2026:KER:48800
11
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
Regulation 2019 to the faculties in Polytechnic Colleges in
the State. Also, in clause 1.4(b) of the above Notification, it
has been specified that the qualifications, Experience,
Recruitment and Promotions, etc., during 01.01.2016 till
the issue of the Notification shall be governed by AICTE Pay
Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the
Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions
(Diploma) Regulation, 2010 dated 5th March 2010 and
subsequent notifications issued from time to time. 6th AICTE
regulation only describes the qualification for teaching
faculties in polytechnics and does not prescribe mode of
appointment to these posts and the scheme is still prevailing
in State as the 7th AICTE regulation has not been
implemented in the State so far.
9. As per G.O.(Ms)No.75/2014/Fin dated 20.02.2014
(Annexure A3), only AICTE qualified candidates can be
appointed to the teaching posts, such as Lecturer, Head of
Department and Principal, in Government and Aided
Polytechnics in State. Mode appointment of teaching
faculties in polytechnics has not been described in the above
Government Order, as the same has not been mentioned in
the AICTE Notification for diploma level institutions dated
05.03.2010, based on which the Government Order dated
20.02.2014 was issued. In the above Government Order, it
has only been specified that all direct recruitments to the
cadre of Lecturer, Head of Department and Principal in the
subjects covered under AICTE scheme, from the date of the
order will deemed to be in AICTE scheme and such
candidates must possess all qualifications prescribed by
2026:KER:48800
12
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
AICTE. As per Annexure A4, AICTE has issued regulations
on mode of appointment of teachers and other academic
staff in Diploma level technical institutions on the basis of
7th CPC. As per clause 2.1 in the regulation mode of
appointment to the post of Lecturers & Principals in
Polytechnics will be either by Direct Recruitment or by
promotion and mode of appointment to the post of Heads of
Department will be by direct recruitment. However this
regulation has not yet been made applicable to Polytechnic
Colleges in the State. In clause 1.4(b) of the above
Notification, it has been specified that the qualifications,
experience, recruitment and Promotions etc. during
01.01.2016 till the issue of the Notification shall be shall be
governed by AICTE Pay Scales, Service Conditions and
Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in
Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulation, 2010 dated 5 th
March 2010 and subsequent notifications issued from time
to time. 6th AICTE regulation only describes the qualification
for teaching faculties in polytechnics and does not prescribe
mode of appointment to these posts and the scheme is still
prevailing in State as the 7th AICTE regulation has not been
implemented in the State so far. Hence eligible candidates
who possess the qualifications prescribed by AICTE can be
recruited to the teaching posts in Polytechnics as per the
existing special rules of Technical Education Department.”
2.2. Similarly, paragraphs 4 to 7 of the reply statement
dated 20.09.2019 filed on behalf of the Directorate of Technical
Education read thus;
2026:KER:48800
13
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
“4. It is submitted that the sanctioned strength for the post
of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in Polytechnic colleges
is 119. The ratio between PSC and By transfer
appointments is fixed as 13:7 as per the existing special
rules G.O.(P)No.366/2010/HEDN dated 08.11.2010.
Accordingly, the strength of incumbents under PSC
recruitment and by transfer is to be maintained as 77:42.
The number of vacancies so far reported for advice for
candidates based on Annexure A1 ranked list is 81 and the
permissible number which could be utilized for appointing
PSC hands on the basis of the relevant provisions is only 77.
Once the 13:7 ratio is attained, the order of rotation of PSC
and By transfer to be followed for next arising vacancies is
as stipulated in the order No. EG1/24322/2000/DTE dated
28-01-2011. The incumbents appointed through by transfer
method till 31.03.2019 was only 31. Therefore for
maintaining the said ratio 10 vacancies caused due to
promotion of incumbents as Head of Department has been
reported for by transfer method. True copy of the Order No.
EG1-24322/2000/DTE dated 28.01.2011 is produced
herewith and marked as Annexure R4 (a).
5. Thus, after attaining the said ratio, i.e., 77 : 42 in the
post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, 05 vacancies
were occurred due to retirement of incumbents appointed
through by transfer. Among the 05 vacancies 4 numbers of
vacancies has been reported to PSC for direct recruitment
and 01 vacancy has been reported for by transfer
appointment as stipulated in the rotation chart. The existing
vacancies, pending now to be filled up in the said post
2026:KER:48800
14
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
covered by Annexure A1 ranked list is 3(2-General 1-NCA).
6. It is submitted that even though the special rule remain
to be amended, Government have implemented AICTE
Scheme to qualified teaching faculties such as Lecturer,
Head of Section and Principal in Government and Aided
Polytechnic Colleges in the state w.e.f. 01.07.2013 strictly
in accordance with the specific norms and conditions
prescribed vide Order GO(Ms) No.75/2014/Fin dated
20/02/2014. It is specified in Order that all recruitments to
the cadre of Lecturer, Head of Department and Principal
from the date of the above Government order shall deemed
to be under AICTE Scheme and for such recruitments the
norms prescribed by AICTE should be strictly followed.
Accordingly revised proposal for amendment of the existing
State Service Special Rules (on the qualification prescribed
for Polytechnic Stream) has already been forwarded to
Government by this office letter No.EG1/44878/2012/DTE
dated 19.07.2017 and subsequent modified draft
Amendment of Special Rules vide letter
No.EG1/44878/12/DTE dated 18.09.2018 and the same is
under the consideration of the Government.
7. Moreover as per the existing special rules, the ratio of
appointment of Lecturer in Polytechnics is 13 : 7. As per
the Rule 5 Note 3 of KS and SSR1960,” whenever a ratio or
percentage is fixed for different methods of
recruitment/appointment to a post the number of vacancies
to be filled up by candidates from each method shall be
decided by applying the fixed ratio or percentage to the
cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment/transfer
2026:KER:48800
15
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
is made and not to the vacancies existing at that time.
Accordingly, this respondent has reported vacancies for both
direct recruitment and By transfer method.”
2.3. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of
materials on record, the Tribunal, by the common order dated
09.12.2019, allowed the original applications. Paragraphs 5 to 9
and the last paragraph of that order read thus;
“5. We note from Annexure A5 order dated 20.02.2014 of
the 1st respondent, that for recruitments for the post of
Lecturer, Head of Department and Principal, in the subjects
covered under AICTE Scheme, the norms prescribed by
AICTE should be strictly followed. By Annexure-A6
notification, AICTE has made a number of modifications in
their regulations with effect from 01.03.2019. As already
noted, in cases where the selection process has not reached
a stage specified in the notification, further steps have to be
taken in accordance with provisions of the revised
regulations. It would be clear from Para. 2.1 of the
notification that the mode of appointment for the post of
Lecturers is only direct recruitment.
6. Learned counsel for respondents 8 and 9 argued that
under Para 2.6 of the AICTE notification, the rights of
persons like them are protected. A reading of Para. 2.6 of
the notification would show that it stipulates that the
selection process for promotion and direct recruitment
should be done on an annual basis. As the post of Lecturer
is filled up through direct recruitment and not by promotion,
2026:KER:48800
16
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021the said paragraph in the regulation does not support the
contentions of the respondents 8 and 9.
7. We also note that in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.
29253/2012, the Full Bench of the Hon’ble High Court had
observed as follows:
“17. Therefore , irrespective of whether the University Acts
enacted under Entry 25 of List III or the Statutes framed
thereunder are amended in line with the UGC Regulations or
not, in view of its adoption by the State of Kerala with effect
from 18.09.2010 as per Government Order dated 10.12.2010
the Universities and affiliated colleges in Kerala State are
bound to comply with the UGC Regulations, 2010. Viewed in
that manner, the natural consequence is that the principles
laid down by this Court in Raveendran’s case cannot be
sustained and is overruled.”
8. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that by
transfer appointments can be continued till the Special Rules
are amended, cannot be accepted.
9. Under the above circumstances, the applicants are
entitled to succeed. The Original Applications are
accordingly allowed. There will be a direction to the 2nd and
4th respondents to ensure that the substantive vacancies of
Lecturer are reported to the Public Service Commission.
Since, Annexure-A18 ranked list in O.A.No.1417 of 2019 is
expiring on 29.12.2019, the vacancies of Lecturer in
Mechanical Engineering shall be reported on or before
20.12.2019.
The Original Applications are disposed of as above.”
2.4. The petitioners who have been working as Workshop
2026:KER:48800
17
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
Instructors/Demonstrator/Instructor Grade II under various
institutions in the Technical Education Department, who are
desirous of being appointed to the post of Lecturer in Government
Polytechnics and were not parties to the original applications, filed
R.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.A.No.1578 of 2019 and R.A.No.5 of 2021
in O.A.No.1417 of 2019, seeking review of the impugned common
order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Tribunal in the original
applications.
2.5. In the review applications it was contended by the
petitioners that as per Annexure RA2 Regulations dated
20.05.2020 produced in R.A.No.5 of 2021, issued by the AICTE it
is clarified that in order to avoid hardship to those faculty
members who have already qualified or are likely to qualify shortly
under the existing Regulations, a choice will be given to them for
being considered for promotions and this option can be exercised
by the incumbents within three years from date of notification and
therefore the vacancies of Lecturers arose from 01.03.2019 to
01.03.2022 can be filled up in the ratio of 13:7 between direct
recruits and by transfer appointees. The petitioners further
contended that Annexure A4 regulations produced in the O.A. are
2026:KER:48800
18
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
not been laid before the Parliament as required under Section 24
of AICTE Act. The petitioners therefore sought setting aside of the
common order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Tribunal in the
original applications.
2.6. In the review applications, the contesting respondents
produced a copy of the judgment of this Court in O.P. (KAT)Nos.
542, 543 and 544 of 2019 and 38 of 2020 by which the order of
the Tribunal dated 09.12.2019 has been modified. Thereafter, by
the impugned common order dated 28.04.2021 the Tribunal
dismissed the review applications as infructuous. Paragraphs 5
and the last paragraph of that order read thus;
“5. Heard the learned counsel for the review applicants, the
learned counsel for the contesting respondents, the learned
Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel for
the PSC. We note that the Hon’ble High Court had held in
the judgment dated 22.12.2020 in the aforesaid O.Ps.(KAT)
that the vacancies of Lecturers in polytechnics which arose
prior to 01.03.2019 can be filled up without reference to the
AICTE regulations of 2019. However, all vacancies that
arose after 01.03.2019 shall be filled up only through direct
recruitment. The directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court
were as follows:
“9. Therefore, in modification of the orders issued by the
Tribunal, we dispose of these Original Petitions directing the
2026:KER:48800
19
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021competent authority to ensure that the vacancies in the post
of Lecturers in Technical streams in Polytechnics under the
Technical Education Department are filled up in accordance
with the stipulations in the Kerala Technical Education Service
Rules, 1967, 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 in Technical
Education – (Diploma) Regulation, 2019″.
In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble High Court, the
reliefs sought in the Review Applications are no longer
available. The Review Applications are therefore dismissed
as infructuous”.
2.7. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are now before this
Court with these original petitions.
3. On 10.11.2021 when these original petitions came up for
consideration, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following
order:
“One of the main points that has been urged before us by
Sri.P.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in the O.P in view of RA2 notification dated
2026:KER:48800
20
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 202120.05.2020 [see page 68 of the paper book in
O.P(KAT)No.152/2021], the respondent-AICTE themselves
have extended the cut-off date of 01.03.2019, by a further
period of three years therefrom to enable the existing
teaching faculty members, who are qualified or likely to be
qualified for promotion. Further that, the main premise as
if, the cut-off date of 01.03.2019 is inflexible and that, from
01.03.2019, the sole method of appointment can only be
direct recruitment, etc., is on an erroneous premise and
that, for the extended time upto 01.03.2022, existing
teaching faculty members, who get qualified, can have the
legal right to be considered for promotion, as per the
existing Rules of the State Government and that this is
notwithstanding the provision for exclusive method of direct
recruitment, laid down by the respondent-AICTE, as per
Annexure-A6. In view of this submission, the learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent-KSEB will immediately
get instructions, as to whether the respondent-AICTE has
issued a notification in the nature of Annexure-RA2 and
whether the abovesaid contention of the petitioner is that
they have the right to be considered for promotion till
01.03.2022, is tenable, etc.
List these cases on 29.11.2021.”
4. On 27.05.2022, when these original petitions came up for
consideration, the Division Bench of Court passed the following
order:
“Respondent AICTE and the respondent State Government
in the Higher Education Department will furnish instructions
2026:KER:48800
21
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021to the learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE and the
learned Senior Government Pleader respectively and may
file their respective separate statements as to whether any
amounts by way of grand in aid etc have been disbursed by
the AICTE to the Government of Kerala for implementing the
AICTE scheme in the Government Engineering Colleges and
Government Polytechnic Colleges and if so, whether there
are any specific provisions in those norms that failure by the
State Government to adhere to even the norms like
retirement age could result in penal action of the respondent
AICTE having to demand refund of such amounts. Details in
that regard should be averred in the respective statements
to be filed by the respondent AICTE to the respondent State
Government and copies of documents regarding such norms
and also to substantiate actual payments of such grand
should also be produced.
List these cases on 13.06.2022.
Handover to both sides.”
5. On 09.08.2023, by a detailed order, the Division Bench of
this Court directed the Registry to place the papers of these cases
before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for posting the matter before
a Full Bench, for considering the correctness of the view taken by
the Division Bench of this Court in Suresh v. State of Kerala
[2021 (1) KLT 566 (DB)] and Haridas v. Athira [2021 (1)
KLT 546]. Paragraphs 8 to 12 and the last paragraph of that
reference order read thus;
2026:KER:48800
22
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
“8. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court,
in decisions as in Jagdish Prasad Sharma’s case (supra)
[(2013) 8 SCC 633]; Dr.J.Vijayan’s case (supra) [2022 SCC
Online SC 958], the views laid down by the Division Bench
of this Court in Suresh‘s case (supra) and Haridas’s case
(supra) would require serious reconsideration.
9. Further, it has to be seriously examined as to whether
the parameters of method of appointment, like Direct
Recruitment, promotion, By Transfer etc., could be directly
and inextricably connected to co-ordination of
determination of standards in institutions for higher
education referable to Entry 66 of List-I of the VII schedule.
10. In that regard it may also be pertinent to refer to the
dictum laid down by the Seven Judge Bench of Apex Court
in the celebrated decision in Gujarat University and Anr. v.
Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and Ors. [AIR 1963 SC 703],
which has dealt with the various aspects regarding the
impact of Union law feasible to Entry 66 of List-I, viz a viz,
the State enactments. It may be pertinent to refer to paras
24 to 27 of Gujarat University‘s case (supra), which read as
follows:
“24. The State has the power to prescribe the syllabi and
courses of study in the institutions named in Entry 66 (but
not falling within entries 63 to 65) and as an incident thereof
it has the power to indicate the medium in which instruction
should be imparted. But the Union Parliament has an
overriding legislative power to ensure that the syllabi and
courses of study prescribed and the medium selected do not
impair standards of education or render the coordination of
such standards either on an All India or other basis
2026:KER:48800
23
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021impossible or even difficult. Thus, though the powers of the
Union and of the State are in the Exclusive Lists, a degree
of overlapping is inevitable. It is not possible to lay down
any general test which would afford a solution for every
question which might arise on this head. On the one hand,
it is certainly within the province of the State Legislature to
prescribe syllabi and courses of study and, of course, to
indicate the medium or media of instruction. On the other
hand, it is also within the power of the Union to legislate in
respect of media of instruction so as to ensure co-ordination
and determination of standards, that is, to ensure
maintenance or improvement of standards. The fact that the
Union has not legislated, or refrained from legislating to the
full extent of its powers does not invest the State with the
power to legislate in respect of a matter assigned by the
Constitution to the Union. It does not, however, follow that
even within the permitted relative fields there might not be
legislative provisions in enactments made each in pursuance
of separate exclusive and distinct powers which may conflict.
Then would arise the question of repugnancy and
paramountey which may have to be resolved on the
application of the “doctrine of pith and substance” of the
impugned enactment. The validity of the State legislation on
University education and as regards the education in
technical and scientific institutions not falling within Entry
64 of List I would have to be judged having regard to
whether it impinges on the field reserved for the Union
under Entry 66. In other words, the validity of State
legislation would depend upon whether it prejudicially
affects coordination and determination of standards, but not
upon the existence of some definite Union legislation
directed to achieve that purpose. If there be Union
2026:KER:48800
24
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021legislation in respect of co-ordination and determination of
standards, that would have parmountcy over the State law
by virtue of the first part of Art. 254(1); even if that power
be not exercised by the Union Parliament the relevant
legislative entries being in the exclusive lists, a State law
trenching upon the Union field would still be invalid.
25.Counsel for the University submitted that the power
conferred by item No. 66 of List I is merely a power to co.-
ordinate and to determine standards i.e. It is a power merely
to evaluate and fix standards of education, because, the
expression “co-ordination” merely means evaluation, and
“determination” means fixation. Parliament has therefore
power to legislate only for the purpose of evaluation and
fixation of standards in institutions referred to in item 66. In
the course of the argument, however, it was somewhat
reluctantly admitted that steps to remove disparities which
have actually resulted from the adoption of a regional
medium and the falling of standards, may be undertaken
and legislation for equalising standards in higher education
may be enacted by the Union Parliament. We are unable to
agree with this contention for several reasons. Item No. 66
is a legislative head and in interpreting it unless it is
expressly or of necessity found conditioned by the words
used therein, a narrow or restricted interpretation will not
be put upon the generality of the words. Power to legislate
on a subject should normally be held to extend to all
ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly and
reasonably be said to be comprehended in that subject.
Again there is nothing either in item 66 or elsewhere in the
Constitution which supports the submission that the
expression “co-ordination” must mean in the context in
which it is used merely evaluation, co-ordination in its
2026:KER:48800
25
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
normal connotation means harmonising or bringing into
proper relation in which all the things co-ordinated
participate in a common pattern of action. The power to co-
ordinate, therefore, is not merely power to evaluate, it is
power to harmonise or secure relationship for concerted
action. The power conferred by item 66 List I is not
conditioned by the existence of a state of emergency or
unequal standards calling for the exercise of the power.
26. There is nothing in the entry which indicates that the
power to legislate on coordination of standards in institution
of higher education, does not include the power to legislate
for preventing the occurrence of or for removal of disparities
in standards. This power is not conditioned to be exercised
merely upon the existence of a condition of disparity nor is
it a power merely to evaluate standards but not to take steps
to rectify or to prevent disparity. By express pronouncement
of the Constitution makers, it is a power to co-ordinate, and
of necessity, implied therein is the power to prevent what
would make co-ordination impossible or difficult. The power
is absolute and unconditional, and in the absence of any
controlling reasons it must be given full effect according to
its plain and expressed intention. It is true that “medium of
instruction” is not an item in the legislative list. It falls within
item No. 11 as a necessary incident of the power to legislate
on education: it also falls within items 63 to 66. In so far as
it is a necessary incident of the powers under item 66 List I
it must be deemed to be included in that item and therefore
excluded from item 11 List II. How far State legislation
relating to medium of instruction in institutions has impact
upon co-ordination of higher education is a matter which is
not susceptible, in the absence of any concrete challenge to
a specific statute, of a categorical answer. Manifestly, in
2026:KER:48800
26
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
imparting instructions in certain subjects, medium may have
subordinate importance and little bearing on standards of
education while in certain other its importance will be vital.
Normally, in imparting scientific or technical instructions or
in training students for professional courses like law,
engineering, medicine and the like existence of adequate
text books at a given time, the existence of journals and
other literature availability of competent instructors and the
capacity of students to understand instructions imparted
through the medium in which it is imparted are matters
which have an important bearing on the effectiveness of
instruction and resultant standards achieved there by. If
adequate textbooks are not available or competent
instructors in the medium, through which instruction is
directed to be imparted are not available, or the students
are not able to receive or imbibe instructions through the
medium in which it is imparted, standards must of necessity
fall, and legislation for co-ordination of standards in such
matters would include legislation relating to medium of
instruction.
27. If legislation relating to imposition of an exclusive
medium of instruction in a regional language or in Hindi
having regard to the absence of text-books and journals,
competent teachers and incapacity of the students to
understand the subjects, is likely to result in the lowering of
standards, that legislation would, in our judgment,
necessarily fall within item 66 of List I and would be deemed
to be excluded to that extent from the amplitude of the
power, conferred by item No. 11 of List II.”
11. In that context, it will be pertinent to consider the
issue as to whether the prescription of the methods of
2026:KER:48800
27
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
appointment to a teaching post in Engineering Colleges and
Technical Institutions, like direct recruitment, promotion,
by Transfer etc., as per the statutory special rules framed
by the State, would directly and inevitably lead to the
dilution of the standards of education as per the AICTE
norms or whether it would directly and inevitably lead to
the reduction or disparity of standards of Technical
Education etc. There is strong force in the submissions of
the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-
State and departmental authorities, that matters relating
to prescription or methods of appointments to teaching
posts in Government Educational Institutions, may
predominantly or exclusively fall within the province of
policy of the State, traceable to the legislative competence
as per Entry 41, Public Services of List-II State List, read
with Entry 25, General Education of the Concurrent list, as
long as the State rules strictly enforce the minimum
qualifications for teachers prescribed by the AICTE. It is
seriously open to doubt as to whether, prescriptions of such
methods of appointment, like by Transfer, promotion etc.
would directly and inevitably lead to reduction of disparity
of standards of education in such Technical Institutions.
Viewed from this perspective, it may be very difficult to
hold that the statutory rules framed by the State traceable
to Entry 41 of List-II etc., relating to prescriptions or
methods of appointments, like by Transfer, promotion etc.
could be viewed as being repugnant to the provisions of
the AICTE Act. It is all the more so, as Section 10 of the
2026:KER:48800
28
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
AICTE Act, is mainly concerned with co-ordinated and
integrated development of Technical Education and
maintenance of standards etc.
12. In the light of these aspects, we are of the considered
view that the the matter would require reconsideration and
hence, these matters are referred to a Full Bench for an
authoritative determination of the said issues.
Accordingly, the Registry is directed to place the papers in
these cases before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, for posting
the matters before a Full Bench, for considering the
correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench of this
Court in Suresh‘s case (supra) [2021 (1) KLT 566 (DB),
paras 14 and 15] and Haridas’s case (supra) [2021 (1) KLT
546, paras 6 and 7]”.
6. By the order dated 12.09.2024, the Full Bench headed by
the Acting Chief Justice answered the reference, holding that the
law laid down in Suresh‘s case and Haridas’s case is correct
law and does not require any reconsideration. Paragraphs 9 to 24
and the last paragraph of that order read thus;
“9. In the notification issued by the AICTE dated
01/03/2019, it is explicitly stated that the mode of
appointment to the post of lecturer is by direct recruitment.
In the Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment)
Special Rules made by the State Government in the year
2010, appointment to the post of lecturer is by direct
recruitment and by transfer appointment in the ratio of
13:7. In Haridas’s case (supra), the Division Bench held
2026:KER:48800
29
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021that Rules framed by the State under Article 309 of the
Constitution, in conjunction with provisions of Public Service
Act cannot operate against the stipulation of the AICTE, if
such stipulations pertain to the maintenance of standards
of education. The Division Bench in obvious terms opined in
Haridas’s case (supra) that stipulation regarding direct
recruitment can be construed as a requirement relating to
the maintenance of standards. The Division Bench reasoned
that AICTE had intended for fresh graduates and other
qualified candidates to be better equipped to impart
technical education than those who would fill the position
through promotion.
10. In Jagdish ‘s case (supra), which was quoted
extensively in the reference order, the Apex Court held that
“regulations framed by UGC under UGC Act, 1956 which
relates to Sch.VII List I Entry 66 cannot alter any terms and
conditions of enactments by a State under Art.309. A State
is entitled to enact any laws about service conditions of
teachers and other staff of State Universities, and the same
would have effect unless repugnant to any primary Central
legislation.”
11. In Vijayan’s case (supra), the Apex Court reiterated that
the question of enhancement of the age of retirement is
exclusively within the domain of the policy-making power of
the State Government and in paragraph 8 it was observed
as follows:
“8. The UGC Regulations have to be consistent with the
directions on questions of policy relating to national
purposes, as may be given by the Central Government as
2026:KER:48800
30
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021per Section 20 of the UGC Act, 1956. In the case of any
dispute between UGC and the Central Government, as to
whether a question is a question of policy relating to national
purpose, a decision of the Central Government prevails over
that of UGC.”
12. We may not have much doubt as to the competence of
the State Government to fix the method or mode of
appointment as it falls within the power of the State to make
laws regulating state public services under Entry 41 of List
II. The State also has the necessary power under Article
309 of the Constitution to regulate the recruitment of
service of persons appointed to public services in
connection with the affairs of the State. Mode or method of
recruitment cannot be equated with conditions of service in
public services. The State’s competency under Article 309
to regulate recruitment necessarily implies that it has the
power to prescribe the mode and method of recruitment. At
the same time, under the Union List in Entry 66 in List I, it
is in the exclusive domain of the Union to prescribe
standards of higher education which includes technical
institutions. AICTE Act, 1987 is an enactment of the
Parliament. In the exercise of power under that enactment,
AICTE issued the notification. Under Section 23 of the above
enactment, AICTE has the power to make regulations.
Based on this power, AICTE issued notifications regulating
the method of appointment, which means, the method of
appointment is governed by central enactment. It cannot
be said, that the method of appointment is not covered
under Section 10(i) of the AICTE Act, which reads thus:
2026:KER:48800
31
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021“10. Functions of the Council. – It shall be the duty of the
Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring
coordinated and integrated development of technical
education and maintenance of standards and for the
purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the
Council may –
xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula,
physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff
qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and
examinations.”
13. If the method of appointment would have a bearing on
standards of learning to be imparted in technical education,
the court cannot say that such a prescription of the method
of appointment is beyond the power of AICTE. While, it may
be true that AICTE Act does not explicitly grant authority to
prescribe mode of appointment in technical institution, the
ACITE believes that the method of appointment is integral
to the quality of education to be imparted in a technical
institution, the court cannot judicially review the wisdom of
an expert body. As rightly noted in Haridas’s case (supra)
AICTE might have concluded that open selection through
direct recruitment would attract more meritorious
candidates than by transfer appointment. In direct
recruitment, it is obvious that more opportunities will be
available to consider a large number of meritorious
candidates. In by transfer appointments, such consideration
is restricted and limited to those who are in employment.
Therefore we cannot per se say that the method of
2026:KER:48800
32
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
recruitment has no direct bearing on the standard of
education. Therefore, we all are of the view that the method
of appointment is inextricably connected with the standard
or quality of education in technical institutions.
14. Under the Constitutional Scheme in the Concurrent List,
the State is also competent to make laws under Entry 25 in
regard to education including technical education subject to
Entry 66 of List I. Viewed from that angle, any Rules made
by the State invoking Entry 25 will be subject to laws made
under the Central enactment.
15. Furthermore, laws made by the State under Entry 41 of
List II (State List), which relate to State Public Service, may
overlap with laws made by the Union. Although the State
has the authority to enact laws, such laws may become
repugnant if conflicts cannot be avoided. The essence of the
regulations made by the AICTE is to maintain educational
standards, while the laws made by the State establish
recruitment policies. Although the objectives differ, conflicts
are inevitable, resulting in unavoidable repugnancy. This
repugnancy can arise from the facts of the situation. It need
not be explicitly stated in the legislation; if the court finds,
upon inquiry, that factual repugnancy exists, the inevitable
consequence is that the applicable law may directly conflict
with both parliamentary and State legislation.
16. Under the Constitution, repugnancy can arise in two
ways. First, if enactments fall within the legislative spheres
allocated to Parliament or State legislation, they may
substantially or incidentally overlap, resulting in conflict. In
light of the distribution of powers under Article 246, State
2026:KER:48800
33
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
legislation must yield to parliamentary supremacy. This
scenario occurs when Parliament enacts a law covering a
field under List I while the State enacts a law for fields under
List II of Schedule VII.The second situation arises when
laws made by Parliament and the State in the Concurrent
List are in direct conflict. In the first situation, State law
cannot be upheld as the constitutional framework
emphasizes parliamentary supremacy over State laws. In
the second situation, State law may be preserved if there is
an inconsistency between the laws made by Parliament and
those made by the State Legislature, provided the State law
receives the assent of the President, as outlined in clause 2
of Article 254.
17. Article 246 addresses the distribution of legislative
powers, and the non-obstante clause in Article 246(1)
indicates that the power of Parliament is exclusive, thereby
excluding State laws. The Constitution envisions that Union
laws enumerated in List I shall prevail over State laws in
List II of Schedule VII. If the court finds that the laws made
by Parliament and the State cannot coexist, it must resolve
the conflict, ruling that the State law becomes inoperative
18. In Deep Chand v. The State of U.P. and Others (AIR
1959 SCC 648), the Apex court in paragraph 16 after
referring to American Law in regard to the effect of law
made in excess of power in paragraph 16 held as follows:
16. If Arts. 245 and 13 (2) define the ambit of the power to
legislate, what is the effect of a law made in excess of that
power? The American Law gives a direct and definite answer
to this question. Cooley in his “Constitutional Limitations”
2026:KER:48800
34
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021(Eighth Edition, Volume 1) at page 382 under the heading
“Consequences if a statute is void” says:-
“When a statute is adjudged to be unconstitutional, it is as if
it had never been And what is true of an act void in toto is
true also as to any part of an act which is found to be
unconstitutional, and which, consequently, is to be regarded
as having never, at any time, been possessed of any legal
force”
In Rottschaefer on Constitutional Law, much to the same
effect is stated at page 34:
“The legal status of a legislative provision in so far as its
application involves violation of constitutional provisions,
must however be determined in the light of the theory on
which Courts ignore it as law in the decision of cases in which
its application produces unconstitutional results. That theory
implies that the legislative provisions never had legal force as
applied to cases within that clause.”
In “Willis on Constitutional Law,”, at page 89:
“A judicial declaration of the unconstitutionality of a statute
neither annuls nor repeals the statute but has the effect of
ignoring or disregarding it so far as the determination of the
rights of private parties is concerned. The Courts generally
say that the effect of an unconstitutional statute is nothing. It
is as though it had never been passed…………..”
“Willoughby on Constitution of the United States”, Second
Edition, Volume I, page 10:
“The Court does not annul or repeal the statute if it finds it in
conflict with the Constitution. It simply refuses to recognize
it, and determines the rights of the parties just as if such
statute had no application…
The validity of a statute is to be tested by the constitutional
power of a legislature at the time of its enactment by that
2026:KER:48800
35
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021legislature, and, if thus tested, it is beyond the legislative
power, it is not rendered valid, without re-enactment, if later,
by constitutional amendment, the necessary legislative power
15 granted. ‘An after-acquired power cannot, ex proprio
vigore, “validate a statute void when enacted”
19. In Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon (1971) 2 SCC 779, the
Apex Court in paragraph 14 held as follows:
“14. Reading Article 246 with the three lists in the Seventh
Schedule, it is quite clear that Parliament has exclusive
power to make laws with respect to all the matters
enumerated in List I and this notwithstanding anything in
clauses (2) and (3) of Article 246. The State Legislatures
have exclusive powers to make laws with respect to any of
the matters enumerated in List II, but this is subject to
clauses (1) and (2) of Article 246. The object of this
subjection is to make Parliamentary legislation on matters in
Lists I and III paramount.”
20. It is appropriate to refer to paragraphs 38 and 41 in the
judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Hoechst Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. and Another etc. v. State of Bihar and Others (AIR 1983
SC 1019)
“38. It is obvious that Art. 246 imposes limitations on the
legislative powers of the Union and State Legislatures and its
ultimate analysis would reveal the following essentials:
1. Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with respect
to any of the matters enumerated in List 1 notwithstanding
anything contained in clauses (2) and (3). The non
obstante clause în Art. 246 (1) provides for predominance
or supremacy of Union Legislature. This power is not
encumbered by anything contained in clauses (2) and (3)
for these clauses themselves are expressly limited and
2026:KER:48800
36
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021made subject to the non obstante clause in Art. 246 (1).
The combined effect of the different clauses contained in
Act 246 is no more and no less than this that in respect of
any matter falling within list I, Parliament has exclusive
power of legislation.
2. The State Legislature has exclusive power to make laws
for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of
the matters enumerated in List II of the Seventh Schedule
and it also has the power to make laws with respect to any
matters enumerated in List III. The exclusive power of the
State Legislature to legislate with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in List II has to be exercised subject
to clause (1) i.e. the exclusive power of Parliament to
legislate with respect to matters enumerated in List 1. As
a consequence, if there is a conflict between an entry in
List I and an entry in List II which is not capable of
reconciliation, the power of Parliament to legislate with
respect to a matter enumerated in List II must supersede
pro tanto the exercise of power of the State Legislature.
**********
**********
41. The words “Notwithstanding anything contained in
clauses (2) and (3),, in Article 246 (1) and the words
“Subject to Cls. (1) and (2)” in Art. 246 (3) lay down the
principle of Federal supremacy viz. that in case of
inevitable conflict between Union and State powers, the
Union power as enumerated in List I shall prevail over the
State power as enumerated in Lists II and III, and in case
of overlapping between Lists II and III, the former shall
prevail. But the principle of Federal supremacy laid down
in Article 246 of the Constitution cannot be resorted to
unless there is an “irreconciliable” conflict between the
2026:KER:48800
37
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
Entries in the Umon and State Lists. In the case of a
seeming conflict between the Entries in the two lists, the
Entries should be read together without giving a narrow
and restricted sense to either of them. Secondly an
attempt should be made to see whether the two Entries
cannot be reconciled so as to avoid a conflict of
jurisdiction. It should be considered whether a fair
reconciliation can be achieved by giving to the language of
the Union Legislative List a meaning which, if less wide
than it might in another context bear, is yet one that can
properly be given to it and equally giving to the language
of the State Legislative List a meaning which it can
properly bear. The non obstante clause in Article 246 (1)
must operate only if such reconciliation should prove
impossible. Thirdly, no question of conflict between the two
lists will arise if the impugned legislation, by the
application of the doctrine of “pith and substance” appears
to fall exclusively under one list, and the encroachment
upon another list is only incidental”
21. In India Cement Ltd. and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
and Others (1990) 1 SCC 12, the Apex court in paragraph
18 observed as follows:
“18. Certain rules have been evolved in this regard, and it
is well settled now that the various entries in the three lists
are not powers but fields of legislation. The power to
legislate is given by Article 246 and other articles of the
Constitution. See the observations of this Court in Calcutta
Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal. The entries in the three
lists of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, are
legislative heads or fields of legislation. These demarcate
the area over which appropriate legislature can operate. It
2026:KER:48800
38
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021is well settled that widest amplitude should be given to the
language of these entries, but some of these entries in
different lists or in the same list may overlap and
sometimes may also appear to be in direct conflict with
each other. Then, it is the duty of the court to find out its
true intent and purpose and to examine a particular
legislation in its pith and substance to determine whether
it fits in one or the other of the lists.”
22. In Baharul Islam and Others v. Indian Medical
Association and Others (AIR 2023 SC 721), the Apex Court
held in paragraph 24 as follows:
“24. We do not think the doctrine of repugnancy governing
Article 254 of the Constitution of India, would apply in the
instant case. Although, Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution of India is in the Concurrent
List which gives powers to both the Union as well as the
State Legislatures to pass laws on the subject of
‘Education’, it is significant to note that any such law to be
made by the State Legislature is subject to, inter alia, Entry
66 of List I or the Union List of the Seventh Schedule.
Hence, when there is a direct conflict between a State Law
and the Union Law in the matter of coordination and
determination of standards in higher education (Entry 66 of
List I) such as in medical education, concerning allopathic
medicine or modern medicine, as is in the instant case,
where the State Law is in direct conflict with the Union law,
the State Law cannot have any validity as the State
Legislature does not possess legislative competence. In
other words, the Assam Act and Rules and Regulations
made under the said Act, being in conflict with the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 (IMC Act, 1956) and the Rules
2026:KER:48800
39
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021and Regulations made thereunder, the doctrine of
repugnancy as such would not apply within the meaning of
Article 254 of the Constitution.”
23. In this matter, this conflict is not incidental to the matter
of appointment and being directly in conflict, the court will
have to resolve such conflict by placing reliance on Article
246 of the Constitution of India. We are of the view that the
regulation framed under the Central enactment would
prevail over the Rules framed under the Kerala Public
Service Act.
24. In conclusion, we answer that the law laid down in
Suresh‘s case and Haridas’s case is correct law and does not
require any re-consideration.
Reference is answered”.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
Standing Counsel for AICTE, the learned counsel for respondents
12 to 14 in O.P.(KAT)No.154 of 2021, the learned Senior
Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for KPSC and
the learned counsel for the applicants in the original applications,
who are arrayed as party respondents in these original petitions.
8. By the order of the Full Bench dated 12.09.2024 in the
reference, the issue of primacy of the regulation framed under the
Central enactment over the Rules framed under the Kerala Public
Service Act is settled. Now the only question that remains in these
original petitions is whether the petitioners can claim promotion
2026:KER:48800
40
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
to the post of lecturer in Government Polytechnics by applying the
ratio of 13:7 between direct recruits and by transfer appointees
based on point 13 in Annexure RA2 which clarifies regarding the
option for Teachers available to choose either to take promotion
under the existing rules or as per the provisions in the notification
under the 7th CPC as published by AICTE on 1st March 2019 within
a period of three years from the date of notification of Annexure
A4 Regulation dated 01.03.2019?.
9. Clause 2.1 of Annexure A4 AICTE Regulations published on
01.03.2019 provides revised designations and mode of
appointments of Lecturer, Head of Department and Principal as
under:
“2.1 Revised Designations and Mode of Appointments
There shall be only three designations in respect of teachers
in the diploma level institutes/polytechnics namely Lecturer
,Head of the Department and Principal as given below in
Table 1. Also there shall be no change in the present
designations in respect of Library and Physical”
Education personnel at various levels.
Following mode of appointment shall henceforth be used
Table l : Cadre Structure and Mode of Appointment
Sl.No. Designation of Teaching Entry Pay Level Mode of Appointment
Faculty (Rs.)
1. Lecturer 56,100 9A Direct Recruitment
2026:KER:48800
41
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
2. Lecturer 57,700 10 Promotion/
Direct Recruitment
3. Lecturer (Senior Scale) 68,900 11 Promotion
4. Lecturer (Selection Grade-I) 79,800 12 Promotion
5. Lecturer (Selection Grade-II) 131,400 13A1 Promotion
6. Head of the Department (HoD) 131,400 13A1 Direct Recruitment
7. Principal 131,400 13A1 Promotion/
Direct Recruitment
10. The clarification contained in point 13 of Annexure RA2
Regulations dated 20.05.2020 relied by the petitioners read thus;
“13. Is the option for teachers The criteria for promotions laid
available to either choosing down under these Regulations
to take promotion under shall be effective from the date of
the existing rules or as per notification of these regulations.
the provisions in the However, to avoid hardship to
notification under 7th CPC those faculty members who have
as published by AICTE on already qualified or are likely to
1st March 2019? qualify shortly under the existing
regulations, a choice may be
given to them, for being
considered for promotions under
the existing regulations. This
option can be exercised by Deree
and Diploma teachers, both but
only within three years from the
date of notification of these
regulations”.
(Underline supplied)
11. A combined reading of Regulation 2.1 in Annexure A4
and point 13 in Annexure RA2 would make it clear that the
2026:KER:48800
42
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
clarification provided in point 13 of Annexure RA2 is pertaining to
the Lecturers who are already in service to move to the next
higher level by promotion. It does not apply to the aspirants who
are working in other discipline and aspiring to move to the post of
Lecturer at the entry level, by transfer. After Annexure A4 AICTE
regulations published on 01.03.2019, the only mode of
appointment to the entry level of Lecturer is by direct recruitment.
The clarification in point No.13 of Annexure RA2 is applicable to
the Lecturers who are already in service and who desire to move
to the next higher level mentioned in the table of clause 2.1 of
Annexure A4 AICTE regulations.
12. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior
Government Pleader pointed out the reply statement dated
20.09.2019 filed on behalf of the Directorate of Technical
Education and submitted that since the Government has already
accepted and implemented AICTE Scheme to qualified teaching
faculties such as Lecturers, Head of Section and Principal in
Government and Aided Polytechnic Colleges in the State w.e.f
01.07.2013 vide the specific norms and conditions prescribed as
per order dated 20.02.2014, the Government is also taking the
2026:KER:48800
43
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
stand that the petitioners cannot aspire for promotion to the post
of Lecturer. The learned Standing Counsel for AICTE would also
argue that the answer at point No.13 of the Annexure RA2
notification dated 20.05.2020 clearly indicates that the same is
not related to direct recruitment to be made by the concerned
Institution/University/Dt/PSC, but is actually meant for the
incumbents who are already working as faculty
members/Lecturers for availing their further promotion under the
Regulations 2019.
13. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for
respondents 12 to 14 in O.P.(KAT)No.154 of 2021 relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court dated 19.01.2026 in SLP (C)
No.27710 of 2025 to argue that the AICTE regulations will not
abolish the State Rules for recruitment in Government colleges,
but empowers it to ensure standard of education and service
conditions, particularly for career progression. But on going
through the facts of the present cases in our hand, the said
judgment is not applicable herein for the simple reason that here
the State Government has already accepted and implemented the
AICTE Regulations.
2026:KER:48800
44
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
14. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioners
have not made out any ground to hold the impugned common
order dated 28.04.2021 in R.A.No.4 of 2021 and R.A.No.5 of
2021 and common order dated 09.12.2019 in O.A.No.1417 of
2019 and 1578 of 2019 respectively, of the Tribunal as perverse
or patently illegal which warrants interference by exercising
supervisory jurisdiction.
In the result, these original petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2026:KER:48800
45
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 152 OF 2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure RA1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 09/12/2019 IN
O.A.NO.1578 OF 2019.
Annexure RA2 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION F.NO.61-3/RIFT/7TH
CPC/2016-17 DATED 20/05/2020 DATED
20/05/2020.
Annexure RA3 TRUE COPY OF QUERY DATED 18/09/2020 MADE BY
SUMI KRISHNA K.S.
Annexure RA4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY F.NO.18-1/2019-TS-II (PART
II) DATED 27/09/2019 ISSUED BY CHIEF PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
EDUCATION.
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST NO.603/18/SSVII
DATED 17/08/2018 TO THE POST OF LECTURER IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING (GOVT. POLYTECHNICS) IN
TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF RANK LIST
NO.104/19/SSVII DATED 08/02/2019 TO THE POST
OF LECTURER IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS
ENGINEERING (GOVT. POLYTECHNICS) IN
TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF RANK LIST
NO.1154/17/SSIV DATED 13/12/2017 TO THE POST
OF LECTURER IN BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING (GOVT.
POLYTECHNICS) IN TECHNICAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.210/2013/H.EDN.
DATED 30/05/2013.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF GO(MS)
NO.75/2014/FIN. DATED 20/02/2014.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF ALL INDIA
COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION PAY SCALES,
SERVICE CONDITIONS AND MINIMUM
QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF
TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF SUCH AS
LIBRARY AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL IN
TECHNICAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL IN TECHNICAL
INSTITUTIONS AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE
OF STANDARDS IN TECHNICAL EDUCATION (DIPLOMA)
REGULATION, 2019 DATED 01/03/2019.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY ANEESH KUMAR C.C. TO SPI OF 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 13/03/2019.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY
2026:KER:48800
46
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
NO.RTI10895/2019/DTE ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT TO ANEESH KUMAR C.C. DATED
09/05/2019.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY N.JAYAKUMAR, THE DIRECTOR, DTE, TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 09/05/2019.
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE RTY REPLY
NO.RTI/17555/2019/DTE ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT BY N.JAYAKUMAR DATED 06/06/2019.
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.EG1/15599/18/DTE OP(KAT) NO.542/2020 &
CON. CASES OF THE DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL
EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
07/07/2019.
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.EG1/15599/18/DTE
OF THE DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
DATED 23/07/2019.
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE KPSC NOTIFICATION CALLING
APPLICANTS FOR THE POST OF LECTURER IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING AND PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE DATED
10/08/2015.
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE KPSC NOTIFICATION CALLING
APPLICANTS FOR THE POST OF LECTURER IN
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING AND
PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE DATED 26/07/2016.
Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE KPSC NOTIFICATION CALLING
APPLICANTS FOR THE POST OF LECTURER IN
BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING AND PUBLISHED IN
GAZETTE DATED 13/05/2014.
Annexure A16 TRUE COPY OF FULL PAGES OF THE ALL INDIA
COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION PAY SCALES,
SERVICES CONDITIONS AND MINIMUM
QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF
TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF SUCH AS
LIBRARY AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL IN
TECHNICAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL IN TECHNICAL
INSTITUTIONS AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE
OF STANDARDS IN TECHNICAL OF EDUCATION –
(DIPLOMA) REGULATION, 2019 DATED 01/03/2019.
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28/04/2021 IN RA N.4
OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 09/12/2019 IN OA
NO.1578 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RA NO.4 OF 2021.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF OA NO.1578 OF 2019.
2026:KER:48800
47
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 14/10/2019
FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE OA.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 24/10/2019 FILED
BY THE APPLICANTS.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED
16/11/2019 FLED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN OA.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT IN THE OA DATED 20/11/2019.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL
RESPONDENTS 8 AND 8 IN THE OA DATED
25/11/2019.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER TO ADDITIONAL REPLY
STATEMENT OF 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22/11/2019.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 18/06/2021 RECEIVED
UNDER RTI ACT FROM MINISTRY OF EDUCATION,
GOVT. OF INDIA.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT)
NO.543 OF 2019 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED
22/12/2020.
2026:KER:48800
48
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 154 OF 2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure RA1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 09/12/2019 IN
O.A.NO.1417 OF 2019.
Annexure RA2 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION F.NO.61-3/RIFT/7TH
CPC/2016-2017 DATED 20/05/2020 DATED
20/05/2020.
Annexure RA3 TRUE COPY OF QUERY DATED 18/09/2020 MADE BY
SUMI KRISHNA K.S.
Annexure RA4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY F NO.18-1/2019-TS-II (PART
II) DATED 27/09/2019 ISSUED BY CHIEF PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
EDUCATION.
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST NO.874/2016/SSVII
DATED 30/12/2016 TO THE POST OF LECTURER IN
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING (POLYTECHNICS) IN
TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CAT
NO.295/2012).
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.210/2013/H.EDN.
DATED 30/05/2013.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF G.O.(MS)
NO.75/2014/FIN. DATED 20/02/2014.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF ALL INDIA
COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION PAY SCALES,
SERVICE CONDITIONS AND MINIMUM
QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF
TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF SUCH AS
LIBRARY AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL IN
TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS AND MEASURES FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF STANDARD IN TECHNICAL
EDUCATION (DIPLOMA) REGULATION, 2019 DATED
01/03/2019.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF RTI APPLICATION DATED 13/03/2019
FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF RTI REPLY DATED 09/05/2019
RECEIVED FROM 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED
09/05/2019 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED 06/06/2019
RECEIVED FROM 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.EG1/15599/18/DTE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF
TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DATED 07/07/2019.
2026:KER:48800
49
OP(KAT)Nos.152 and 154 of 2021
Annexure R4(A) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EG1-24322/2000/DTE
DATED 28/01/2011.
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF FULL PAGES OF THE ALL INDIA
COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION PAY SCALES,
SERVICES CONDITIONS AND MINIMUM
QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF
TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF SUCH AS
LIBRARY AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL IN
TECHNICAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL IN TECHNICAL
INSTITUTIONS AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE
OF STANDARDS IN TECHNICAL EDUCATION (DIPLOMA)
REGULATION, 2019 DATED 01/03/2019.
Annexure R4(B) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO.366/2010/HEDN DATED
08/11/2010.
Annexure R4(C) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14/08/2019 IN OA
(EKM) NO.1034/2019.
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28/04/2021 IN RA
NO.5 0F 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 09/12/2019 IN OA
NO.1417 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RA NO.5 OF 2021.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF OA NO.1417 OF 2019.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT IN OA DATED 30/10/2019.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT IN OA DATED 20/09/2019.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 20/11/2019
FILED BY THE APPLICANT AGAINST THE REPLY
STATEMENT OF 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 21/10/2019
FILED BY THE APPLICANT AGAINST THE REPLY
STATEMENT OF 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED
20/11/2019 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 22/11/2019 TO
ADDL. REPLY STATEMENT.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 18/06/2021 RECEIVED
UNDER RTI ACT FROM MINISTRY OF EDUCATION,
GOVT. OF INDIA.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT)
NO.542 OF 2019 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED
22/11/2020.
