Dismissed

Anju Lekshmi.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Sept 2021WP(C)/17077/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by postgraduates seeking SET certificates after appearing for the State Eligibility Test while pursuing their first year of B.Ed. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that eligibility must be assessed as of the last date for application, and the candidates lacked requisite qualifications at that time, precluding the issuance of certificates.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for the issuance of SET certificates to petitioners and the declaration of their entitlement was dismissed.

Anju Lekshmi.S Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 ANJU LEKSHMI.S AGED 25 YEARS D/O. SUDARSANAN P., LEKSHMI, CRA 24-A, TC 35/1506, CHEMBUKONAM, VAZHOTTUKONAM, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695013.

¶10

2 THANSI N AGED 26 YEARS D/O. SHAJAHAN, KOTTAYUDE THEKKATHIL, ELIPPAKULAM P.O, PALLICKAL (VIA), ALAPPUZHA - 690503.

¶11

3 NIMISHA A AGED 25 YEARS D/O. MURUKESAN A, OTHAYAMANGALATH HOUSE, CHERUKULATHOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673008.

¶12

4 RIJA JOHNY AGED 26 YEARS D/O. JOHNY P.M, ELLUVILA VEEDU, MUTTOM, THEKKEMURI, EAST KALLADA P.O, KOLLAM - 691502.

¶13

5 GOPIKA M.B AGED 26 YEARS D/O. MOHANAN N, GOPIKA BHAVAN, PIRAPPANCODE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695607.

¶14

6 PARVATHY L.S AGED 27 YEARS D/O. SURESH K, DWARAKA, KUNNILKUNDARATHERI, PALLICHAL, NEMOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695020.

¶15

7 ANJALI L.J AGED 26 YEARS D/O. JAYAPALAN G. JAYA HOUSE, VENGANOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695523.

¶16

8 ATHIRA T.S AGED 25 YEARS D/O. THANKAPPAN S, SREEKRISHNA MANDIRAM, KANJIRAMPARA, MYLODE P.O, KOLLAM - 691537.

¶17

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

9 SHEENA KRISHNA S.O AGED 26 YEARS D/O. SISUPALAN K, SHEELA SADANAM, THUMPODU, BALARAMAPURAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695501.

¶20

10 GAYATHRI V.D AGED 26 YEARS D/O. DINESH KUMAR V.N, VELLIMITTATHU ILLOM, PALLICKAL NADUVILEMURI P.O, ALAPPUZHA - 690503.

¶21

11 AMRUTHA R AGED 26 YEARS D/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, KALLUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, UMAYANALLOOR P.O, KOLLAM - 691589.

¶22

12 SINJU DANIEL AGED 38 YEARS D/O. DANIEL, ST. ELIZABETH'S SNEHABHAVAN, POLICE STATION ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645.

¶23

13 FASLANA E.K AGED 27 YEARS D/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED, ERIYATTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, POOKKOTTUMPADAM P.O, MALAPPURAM - 679332.

¶24

14 VISHNUPRIYA O, AGED 24 YEARS D/O. RAVI O.V, OLIVAYAL (HO), ATHINILAM, MYLAMBADI P.O, MEENANGADI, WAYANAD - 673591.

¶25

15 THASNEEM ASLAM AGED 26 YEARS D/O. A MOHAMMED ASLAM, GRACE COTTAGE, MEMANA, OACHIRA P.O, KOLLAM-690526. 16 SETHULEKSHMI R.S AGED 26 YEARS D/O. SREEKUMAR, SANKARA BHAVAN, BRN -3, MADANNADA, THEKKEVILA P.O, KOLLAM - 691016. 17 RAHUL R.M AGED 27 YEARS S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR B, RADHAKRISHNA BHAVANAM, PIRAPPANCODE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695607.

¶26

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

18 JEENA FRANKLIN AGED 30 YEARS D/O. FRANKLIN V, J.J. BHAVAN, TC 89/919(1), KANNANTHURA, BEACH P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695007.

¶29

19 SILPA G AGED 24 YEARS D/O. GANGADHARAN, VADAKKE VEEDU, PATHIKKAL, KANNADI P.O, PALAKKAD - 678701.

¶30

BY ADVS. A.RAJASIMHAN AYYAPPADAS V VYKHARI.K.U

¶31

RESPONDENT/S:

¶32

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, STATUE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶33

2 DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, STATUE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶34

3 LBS CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NANDAVANAM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶35

BY ADV SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN, SC, LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

¶36

SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN, GP

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶39

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The State Eligibility Test (SET) is an eligibility criterion for the selection of Higher Secondary Teachers. A SET pass is stipulated as a mandatory qualification for Higher Secondary School Teachers as per Rule 6 Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959.

¶42

As per orders issued by the Government, the 3rd respondent has been entrusted with the responsibility to conduct the test based on the syllabus approved by the Board of Examinations. The test is conducted twice a year.

¶43

Exhibit P1 notification dated 27.12.2019 was issued by the 3rd

¶44

respondent inviting applications from the students. The eligibility as stated in Ext.P1 is as follows:

¶45

The notification states that 50% marks in PG or equivalent grade

¶46

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶47

¶48

and a B.Ed is the basic qualification fixed for candidates. An exemption is however granted to candidates who have acquired one of the basic qualifications. They should be in the final year of the other basic qualification. In other words, if the candidate is a post graduate and if she is pursuing B.Ed, she can apply only if she is pursuing the final year of the B.Ed Course. Candidates appearing for the SET examination are required to submit their PG/B.Ed certificate within one year from the date of declaration of the result of the SET examination or otherwise they will not be declared as passed the examination in that chance.

¶49

Ext.P2 is the prospectus issued by the 3rd respondent detailing

¶50

the scheme of the test, requirement of pass, conditions of eligibility etc. What is of relevance is clauses 5.1 and 5.7 of the prospectus.

¶51

5. Conditions of Eligibility

¶52

5.1 Those who have acquired Master's Degree in the subjects concerned with not less than 50% marks or equivalent grade and B.Ed. degree in any discipline from any one of the universities in Kerala or have acquired these qualifications from any other university recognised as equivalent thereto are eligible to apply for the SET Feb - 2020 with certain exceptions as mentioned in the following paragraphs

¶53

¶54

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶55

¶56

5.7. Candidates who have acquired their Master’s Degree with the minimum required marks for eligibility to appear for SET and are undergoing the final year course for B.Ed Degree are eligible to appear for the test. Similarly candidates who have acquired their B.Ed Degree and are undergoing the final year of their Post Graduate Programme are also eligible to appear for the test. Such candidates must produce the Certificates of their qualifying examinations passed with the minimum required marks within one year from the date of publication of the results of the State Eligibility Test, failing which they shall be treated as disqualified.

¶57

Thus, those candidates who have acquired their Master’s Degree with the minimum required marks for eligibility to appear for SET and are undergoing the final year course for B.Ed Degree only are eligible to appear for the test. Similarly, candidates who have acquired their B.Ed Degree and are undergoing the final year of their Post Graduate Programme are also eligible to appear for the test. As is evident from Exhibit P1, the candidates were to register for the test online between the period from 28.12.2019 and 10.01.2020.

¶58

The petitioners are Post Graduates and admittedly were pursuing their 1st-year B.Ed Course as on the date of notification.

¶59

The test got delayed due to the Pandemic. The test was held only on 10.1.2021 which meant that when they appeared for the exams,

¶60

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶61

¶62

they were pursuing their final year B.Ed Course.

¶63

They all passed the test and results were announced as is evident from Exhibit P3 to P21 result sheets.

¶64

10. When the petitioners sought for issuance of SET certificates, the 3rd respondent refused the same on the ground that the petitioners were not eligible to appear for the test as they were not in the final year of the B.Ed Course at the time of filing the application.

¶65

11. The petitioners contend that the 3rd respondent has grievously erred in refusing to issue the certificate. They would be able to apply for the selection to the post of High School Teacher as notified by the PSC only if they are armed with the SET certificate. Exhibit P1 and P2 would unmistakably make it clear that all that is mandated is that students who appear for the test should be in the final year of B.Ed and nothing more. The petitioners clearly satisfy the said requirement, and they would have to be regarded as eligible.

¶66

12. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶67

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to issue SET certificates to the petitioners forthwith

¶68

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶69

¶70

(ii) Declare that the petitioners are entitled for their SET certificates

¶71

13. In the statement filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the petitioners are candidates who had applied for SET in February, 2020. The notification for SET examination was published on 27/12/2019 and the online registration of candidates started on 20/12/2019. Though the examination was scheduled to be held on 29/03/2020, due to the grave situation prevailing in the State due to the pandemic, it was postponed and could be conducted only on 10/01/2021. As per clause 5.7 of Exhibit P2 prospectus, only the candidates having PG and B.Ed. degree in the concerned subject is allowed to apply for the SET examination. Relaxation is given only to final year students as provided in clause 5.7 of the prospectus. Only candidates who satisfy the eligibility criteria as on the date of application are entitled to the said Certificate. First-year students are not eligible to apply or write the examination. Even if they appear, the ineligible candidates cannot claim SET Certificate on the basis of their appearance as it would cause serious prejudice to many other first-year students who did not apply. It was due to the pandemic that the examination was delayed and the petitioners cannot claim any advantage. It is also stated that some of the petitioners have applied and have appeared for the subsequent examination which is conducted on 14/08/2021.

¶72

14. I have heard Sri.A. Rajasimhan, the learned counsel appearing

¶73

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶74

¶75

for the petitioner, Sri. Shameena Salahudheen, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government pleader.

¶76

15. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced.

¶77

16. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process commences on the date when applications are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of the application has a right to be considered provided he/she fulfils the requisite qualification.

¶78

17. In U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad and

¶79

Another v. Alpana [1994 (2) SCC 723], the Apex Court, after considering a large number of its earlier judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on the last date for receipt of applications by the Commission. The Apex Court held that as the result does not relate back to the date of examination and eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last date of submission of applications.

¶80

A three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court, in Dr. M.V. Nair v.

¶81

Union of India and Others [1993 (2) SCC 429] held as under:

¶82

"9. ... It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date."

¶83

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶84

¶85

In Smt. Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and Another [1995 Supp (4) SCC 706], the Apex

¶86

Court held as follows:

¶87

"2. ... It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications, such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to Rules." (Emphasis added)

¶88

20. In Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp

¶89

(3) SCC 168],it was held:

¶90

"10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to he stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement / notification inviting applications with

¶91

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶92

¶93

reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Surat Chandra, 1990 (2) SCC 669 and District Collector and Chairman. Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990 (3) SCC 655." (Emphasis added)

¶94

21. The Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander

¶95

Shekhar , [1997 (4) SCC 18] had occasion to observe as follows:

¶96

"6. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well - established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued / published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment." (Emphasis added)

¶97

22. In State of Gujarat v. Arvind Kumar T. Tiwari [AIR 2012 SC

¶98

3281] it was held as under:

¶99

"14. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and would therefore, he void in law. Lacking eligibility for

¶100

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶101

¶102

the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. (Sec Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal - 1993 Supp (1) SCC 714 and Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, 2008 (7) SCC 153. (Emphasis added)

¶103

In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, I have considered the materials on records.

¶104

The petitioners are postgraduates. It is admitted that as on the date of submitting the application for SET, they were pursuing their Firstyear B.Ed Course. A reading of Exhibit P1 notification and P2 prospectus will leave no manner of doubt that only candidates who had acquired their Master’s Degree with the minimum required marks for eligibility to appear for SET and were undergoing the final year course for B.Ed Degree were eligible to appear for the test. Similarly, candidates who have acquired their B.Ed Degree and were undergoing the final year of their Post Graduate Programme were also eligible to appear for the test. Such candidates had to produce the Certificates of their qualifying examinations passed with the minimum required marks within one year from the date of publication of the results of the State Eligibility Test, failing which they shall be treated as disqualified. Admittedly, the petitioners did not have the basic eligibility on the last date when the applications were to be submitted. If the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification on the date of application, they were not entitled to apply for the test. Lacking eligibility for the test cannot

¶105

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶106

¶107

be cured at any stage. If a lenient view is taken as requested by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the requirement of eligibility is relaxed, it may result in chaos.

¶108

Sri. Rajasimhan had vehemently contended that the notification of examination and the prospectus has not been happily worded and both interpretations are possible. He would also contend that if that be the case, an interpretation, which would further the interest of the petitioners should be taken. I am afraid that I am unable to accept the said submission. Thousands of applicants, similarly placed as the petitioners usually apply for the said test as it is a mandatory qualification for Higher Secondary school teachers. The experts in the field with due regard to the various factors have imposed a condition that only a final year student can apply. This is clearly borne out from the notification as well as the prospectus. The mere fact that the petitioners herein had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, cannot be a reason to treat them on a preferential basis. If they were not entitled to apply, they cannot claim any equity on the ground that they managed to clear the exam. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for the test for the reason that his/her selection would be contrary to the notification and the prospectus. As held by the Apex court, lacking eligibility at the time of application cannot be cured at any stage and allowing the issuance of the certificate in violation of the stipulation in the prospectus to such a person would result in serious illegality.

¶109

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶110

¶111

Though my sympathies are with the petitioners, in view of the settled principles of law as detailed above, it would not be proper for this Court to grant the prayer sought for.

¶112

For the aforementioned reasons, I am not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioners. This writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

¶113

Sd/-

¶114

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶115

JUDGE

¶116

¶117

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶118

¶119

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17077/2021

¶120

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶121

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 27.12.2019 ISSUED	NOTIFICATION DATED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.	PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED THE 3RD RESPONDEN	SET RESULT OF THE 1ST 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY T .
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED THE 3RD RESPONDEN	SET RESULT OF THE 2ND 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY T .
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED THE 3RD RESPONDEN	SET RESULT OF THE 3RD 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY T .
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED THE 3RD RESPONDEN	SET RESULT OF THE 4TH 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY T .
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED THE 3RD RESPONDEN	SET RESULT OF THE 5TH 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY T .
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED THE 3RD RESPONDEN	SET RESULT OF THE 6TH 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY T .
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED THE 3RD RESPONDEN	SET RESULT OF THE 7TH 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY T .
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED THE 3RD RESPONDEN	SET RESULT OF THE 8TH 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY T .
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED THE 3RD RESPONDEN	SET RESULT OF THE 9TH 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY T .
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED	SET RESULT OF THE 10TH 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY

¶122

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶123

¶124

THE 3RD RESPONDENT .

¶125

Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE SET RESULT OF THE 11TH PETITIONER DATED 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P14	TRUE COPY OF THE SET RESULT OF THE 12TH PETITIONER DATED 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P15	TRUE COPY OF THE SET RESULT OF THE 13TH PETITIONER DATED 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P16	TRUE COPY OF THE SET RESULT OF THE 14TH PETITIONER DATED 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P17	TRUE COPY OF THE SET RESULT OF THE 15TH PETITIONER DATED 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P18	TRUE COPY OF THE SET RESULT OF THE 16TH PETITIONER DATED 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P19	TRUE COPY OF THE SET RESULT OF THE 17TH PETITIONER DATED 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P20	TRUE COPY OF THE SET RESULT OF THE 18TH PETITIONER DATED 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P21	TRUE COPY OF THE SET RESULT OF THE 19TH PETITIONER DATED 26.02.2021 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P22	TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL B.ED CERTIFICATE DATED 1.7.2021 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P23	TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL B.ED CERTIFICATE DATED 1.7.2021 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P24	TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL B.ED

¶126

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶127

¶128

CERTIFICATE DATED 1.7.2021 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

¶129

Exhibit P25	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED PETITIONER ISSUED KERALA.	PROVISIONAL B.ED 1.7.2021 OF THE 4TH BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
Exhibit P26	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED PETITIONER ISSUED KERALA.	PROVISIONAL B.ED 1.7.2021 OF THE 5TH BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
Exhibit P27	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED PETITIONER ISSUED KERALA.	PROVISIONAL B.ED 1.7.2021 OF THE 6TH BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
Exhibit P28	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED PETITIONER ISSUED KERALA.	PROVISIONAL B.ED 1.7.2021 OF THE 7TH BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
Exhibit P29	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED PETITIONER ISSUED KERALA.	PROVISIONAL B.ED 2.7.2021 OF THE 8TH BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
Exhibit P30	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED PETITIONER ISSUED KERALA.	PROVISIONAL B.ED 1.7.2021 OF THE 9TH BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
Exhibit P31	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED PETITIONER ISSUED KERALA.	PROVISIONAL B.ED 1.7.2021 OF THE 10TH BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
Exhibit P32	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED PETITIONER ISSUED KERALA.	PROVISIONAL B.ED 1.7.2021 OF THE 11TH BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
Exhibit P33	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED PETITIONER ISSUED KERALA.	PROVISIONAL B.ED 1.7.2021 OF THE 12TH BY THE UNIVERSITY OF

¶130

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶131

¶132

Exhibit P34	TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL B.ED CERTIFICATE DATED 1.7.2021 OF THE 13TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P35	TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL B.ED CERTIFICATE DATED 1.7.2021 OF THE 14TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P36	TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL B.ED CERTIFICATE DATED 1.7.2021 OF THE 15TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P37	TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL B.ED CERTIFICATE DATED 1.7.2021 OF THE 16TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P38	TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL B.ED CERTIFICATE DATED 1.7.2021 OF THE 17TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P39	TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL B.ED CERTIFICATE DATED 1.7.2021 OF THE 18TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P40	TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL B.ED CERTIFICATE DATED 6.7.2021 OF THE 19TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P41	TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S M.SC. CERTIFICATE DATED 11.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P42	TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER'S M.SC. CERTIFICATE DATED 01.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P43	TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD PETITIONER'S M.SC CERTIFICATE DATED 30.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
Exhibit P44	TRUE COPY OF THE 4TH PETITIONER'S M.A

¶133

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶134

¶135

	CERTIFICATE DATED 3.10.2018 ISSUED BY SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT.
Exhibit P45	TRUE COPY OF THE 5TH PETITIONER'S M.A CERTIFICATE DATED 23.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P46	TRUE COPY OF THE 6TH PETITIONER'S M.SC CERTIFICATE DATED 8.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P47	TRUE COPY OF THE 7TH PETITIONER'S M.A CERTIFICATE DATED 28.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P48	TRUE COPY OF THE 8TH PETITIONER'S M.A CERTIFICATE DATED 28.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P49	TRUE COPY OF THE 9TH PETITIONER'S M.A CERTIFICATE DATED 14.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P50	TRUE COPY OF THE 10TH PETITIONER'S M.SC.CERTIFICATE DATED 17.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE AMRITA VISHWA VIDHYAPEETHAM.
Exhibit P51	TRUE COPY OF THE11TH PETITIONER'S M.SC CERTIFICATE DATED 26.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
Exhibit P52	TRUE COPY OF THE 12TH PETITIONER'S M.A CERTIFICATE DATED 27.0-6.2017 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
Exhibit P52	TRUE COPY OF THE 12TH PETITIONER'S M.A CERTIFICATE DATED 27.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
Exhibit P53	TRUE COPY OF THE 13TH PETITIONER'S M.SC CERTIFICATE DATED 22.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P54	TRUE COPY OF THE 14TH PETITIONER'S M.SC CERTIFICATE DATED 13.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
Exhibit P55	TRUE COPY OF THE 15TH PETITIONER'S M.SC

¶136

WP(C) NO. 17077 OF 2021

¶137

¶138

CERTIFICATE DATED 12.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

¶139

Exhibit P56 TRUE COPY OF THE 16TH PETITIONER'S M.A CERTIFICATE DATED 1.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. Exhibit P57 TRUE COPY OF THE 17TH PETITIONER'S M.SC CERTIFICATE DATED 29.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. Exhibit P58 TRUE COPY OF THE 18TH PETITIONER'S M.SC CERTIFICATE DATED 11.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. Exhibit P59 TRUE COPY OF THE 19TH PETITIONER'S M.A PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE DATED 27.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. Exhibit P60 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 2.8.2021 PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

¶140

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

Anju Lekshmi.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Lekshmi.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gireesh P Vs Pramod M.C

Joelin Joseph Mampilly Vs State of Kerala

Shubha K.B Vs State of Kerala

Laxmi Megan Speciality Health Care Private Limited Vs the State of Kerala

The Manager, Vs the State of Kerala

Betty Thomas Vs State of Kerala