w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Jacob Kunju Kunju, Kollam District & Another v/s State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary, General Education, Department & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- K-EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80301MH2014PTC256056

    WP(C). No. 11755 of 2011

    Decided On, 21 June 2018

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

    For the Petitioners: V. Philip Mathew, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1-R4 & 6-R7, Sunil Kuriakose, Senior Government Pleader.



Judgment Text

Introduction:

1. The petitioner teachers applied for leave to pursue higher studies- M.Ed. They were granted leave without allowance. Later, one of them applied to the Government requesting it to reconsider the decision and to let him have the leave with allowance. It was rejected. Then both the teachers approached this Court, though the second teacher never requested the Government to reconsider its decision.

2. Statutorily speaking leave without allowance is granted under Rule 88 of the KSR whereas leave with allowance, subject to certain conditions, is granted under Rule 91A or Rule 91. The question is which provision governs the teachers. And can the Government's decision be sustained?

Facts in Brief:

3. Jacob Kunju Kunju is a teacher working as Higher Secondary Assistant (HSA) (Malayalam) in an aided school. In September 2007, he applied for leave to pursue his M.Ed. He wanted the leave from 16.8.2007 to 14.8.2008. T. Sajeev, the second petitioner, then a primary school teacher working in a Government School, also applied for leave to pursue his M.Ed. And the leave was from 17.9.2007 to 17.8.2008. Through Exts.P2 and P3 orders, the Government granted the leave without allowance. Later, through Ext.P6, Jacob applied to the authorities to treat the leave under Rule 91A, instead of Rule 88, so he could have the benefit of all allowance for the leave period.

4. Through Ext.P7, the Government rejected Jacob's request. Aggrieved, Jacob approached this Court, joined by Sajeev, his never asking the Government notwithstanding.

Submissions:

5. In the above factual background, Sri V. Philip Mathews, the learned counsel for the teachers, has contended that when the teachers applied for leave, they mentioned no provision. It is for the Government, according to him, to determine under which beneficial provision the teachers could have their leave. In elaboration, Sri Mathews has drawn my attention to Rule 88, 86A, 91 and 91A of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR).

6. Sri Mathews has strenuously contended that the teachers squarely fall under Rule 91, if not Rule 91A. So the Government granting leave to them under Rule 88 is wholly unsustainable. Sri Mathews has, at the outset, candidly submitted that this case faces a precedential problem: Earlier, a learned Single Judge dismissed an identical case in Krishnan v State of Kerala. (12014 (3) KLT S.N. 60) But he has drawn my attention to a Division Bench judgment in State of Kerala v Mahesh (2012 (3) KLT 675) to contend that Krishnan does not confirm with this judgment.

7. Sri Mathews has submitted that the learned Division Bench has examined Rule 91A and has liberally interpreted the rule. The Division Bench, he continued, has held that a teacher acquiring a postgraduate qualification would positively contribute to the service because the superior knowledge he gained benefits the students. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to an unreported judgment of this Court in Anish P. v. State of Kerala(Judgment, dated 29th May 2012), to underline that the Court’s view in Mahesh has been consistently followed.

8. Relying on Secretary, Higher Education Department v Rajalakshmi,( 2012 (3) KLT 498) Sri Mathews has submitted that a teacher's prospects in acquiring higher qualification also must weigh with the Government before it grants leave, more particularly if the teacher has much service left. Referring to Section 13 of Kerala Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, he asserted that once the authority has the power to grant a particular benefit or to follow a specific method in administration, it hardly matters whether the beneficiary-in this case, the teachers-has specifically drawn his attention to the provision beneficial to him.

9. Eventually, Sri Mathews has referred to Jayant Verma v Union of India((2018) 4 SCC 743) and Fr.Sebastian Vadakkumpadan v Shine Varghese(I.L.R. 2018 (2) Ker. 869) to elaborate on the binding nature of precedent. According to him, what binds is what has actually been decided, rather than what may logically follow from a conclusion. He has also referred to the principle of sub silentio and contended that in Krishna's case, the facts are different, and the points now urged were never present.

10. The learned Single Judge in Krishna, according to Sri Mathews, has not considered the impact of Note-2 to Rule 91 and the expansive interpretation Rule 91A received from the hands of the Division Bench in Mahesh too.

11. To conclude, Sri Mathews has urged this Court to set aside Ext.P7 and direct the authorities to extend the benefit to both the teachers under either 91 or 91A, as is beneficial to the teachers.

Respondents’:

12. Sri Sunil Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader, has submitted that Rule 91, especially, Note-2 appended to it, has no application because it never speaks of personal prospects of the teacher. He has also submitted that a promotion, at best, could be a prospect in the service to which the teacher is a member. But acquiring M.Ed qualification does not help the teacher get the promotion. According to him, M.Ed is a qualification required to train teachers, not students. Since the schools these teachers working in contain no course training teachers, the qualification, by no means, improves the teachers’ prospects. So he asserts that the teachers’ acquiring M.Ed., neither helps the school nor advances the teachers’ prospects.

13. Referring to the decisions relied on by the petitioner's counsel, Sri Kuriakose has also submitted that in Mahesh, the petitioner acquired M.Sc. According to him, this qualification improves the knowledge of a teacher. Therefore, the learned Division Bench in Mahesh has held that the superior qualification in the subject the teacher has been teaching is bound to contribute to the service. Further referring to Krishnan's case, Sri Kuriakose has submitted that the facts in this case and those in Krishnan's are identical. In both the cases, the teachers wanted to pursue M.Ed., but applied for leave without allowance. Then, in that context, the learned Single Judge, after considering Mahesh, has definitively concluded: The petitioner in Krishnan could not resile from his earlier request and ask the Government to treat the leave under a different provision which, in the first place, he has never asked for. Therefore, Sri Kuriakose concludes that Krishnan squarely applies to the facts of this case and the writ petition, then, must fail.

14. Heard Sri Philip Mathews, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sunil Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, 6 and 7 besides perusing the record.

Discussion:

15. The question concerns the leave the teachers have obtained -the type of leave they were entitled to, at that. Under a specific provision, they could have the leave with all allowances; under another, they would have no allowances: leave without allowance. The teachers were granted leave without allowance. They wanted it to be otherwise.

16. One teacher here works in an aided school; the other in a government school. Rule 56 of Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules mandates that the Kerala State Service Rules (KSR) will apply to the employees in the aided schools, too. So I may focus on the provisions of KSR.

17. Indeed, Sri Philip Mathews has made earnest efforts to impress upon the Court that the teachers ought to have been given benefit under Rule 91 or 91A, instead of Rule 88. First, he contends that no employee needs to mention the statutory provision to get a particular benefit.

18. I do accept the learned counsel's plea. Once an authority has the power to act or to decide in a specific manner, it hardly matters whether the beneficiary, be it a layperson or a teacher as here, is not constrained to quote the provision ‘chapter and verse’ to get that benefit. In other words, quoting a wrong provision deprives no person of a benefit, which he is otherwise entitled to.

19. But, regrettably, here, the position is different. Had it been a case of the teachers’ not quoting any provision while asking for leave simplicitor; perhaps, Sri Mathew's plea may have persuaded me. Here, Rule 88 of KSR is otherwise. To make things clear, I may refer to Rule 88, which reads as follows:

(I) Leave without allowances may be granted to any officer in regular employment in special circumstances -

[Provided that the leave of person appointed under rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services rules, 1958 shall be regulated by rules under Appendix VIII of these rules, unless he is already an officer on regular employment]

(a) when no other leave is by rule admissible, or

(b) when other leave is admissible, but the officer concerned applies in writing for the grant of leave without allowances.

(ii) Except in the case of an officer in permanently employ, the duration of leave without allowances shall not exceed 3 months on any one occasion. . . .

(italics supplied)

20. Indeed, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, under Rule 88(i)(b), even when other leave is available, if the officer concerned applies in writing for the grant of leave without allowances, that alone could be granted. The legislative purpose, perhaps, is this: The employee may have been saving up a beneficial leave option for future use; he may not want to exhaust it right away.

21. Here I may note one thing. The teachers did not file before the Court the applications they initially submitted to the Government, asking for leave. The learned Government Pleader, however, took pains to produce them. When perused, those applications reveal that the teachers did ask the Government to grant 'leave without allowance.' And Rule 88 alone deals with the leave without allowance. It is, in a manner, a residuary provision providing for leave when an employee is not entitled to leave with allowances or when he does not want to exhaust the leave with allowance. After all, everyone will have a rainy day.

22. Now, we will examine other provisions, especially Rules 91 and 91A. They deal with leave with allowance, but subject to certain conditions. Rule 91 reads thus:

91. Officers with a continuous officiating or temporary service of two years or more, will be granted in addition to any leave which they are eligible for, leave under this rule for obtaining superior qualifications (eg.B.A. and B.L.] provided, however, that the two years' minimum service will not be insisted on in the case of temporary or officiating officers belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Such leave will not, however, be given for broken periods but will cover the entire period of the course concerned. In cases of failure, extension of leave will be granted to cover the further period required for the completion of the course of study.

Note 1. - *** **** *** ****

Note 2.- The term 'superior qualifications' occurring in the above rule denotes only such of the qualifications as on acquisition are intended to enhance the usefulness of the Government servant concerned as a member of the service or will improve his prospects in the service of which he is a member. . . .

(italics supplied)

23. Here, Note-2, on which Sri Mathews has laid much emphasis, refers to 'superior qualification' and notes that it is only such qualification as intended to enhance the usefulness of Government servant concerned as a member of the service. Or it must improve his prospects in the service. Sri Mathews has taken lexical aid to define 'prospects'. According to him, it is not only the question of the teacher’s contributing to the service, but also his getting benefited in his career. Such personal advancement alone can be called 'prospects in service.'

24. On the other hand, Sri Kuriakose has contended that 'prospects' cannot be personal and cannot be read in isolation. According to him, the word 'prospects' is followed by 'in the service of which he is a member.' So he contends that the prospects of the teachers in this case do not improve in any manner the teachers' service because their M.Ed., qualification would not entail them to any benefits, such as promotion. Nor does that qualification enhance their teaching skills, for the students’ benefit. He points out that all the decisions Sri Mathews has relied on interpreted only Rule 91A. The Rule reads as follows:

91A. Officers with a continuous officiating or temporary service of 5 years or more may be granted in addition to any leave to which they are eligible for, leave for undergoing Post- Graduate Courses in the sphere of their duties which are primarily of benefit to the State, such as Post-Graduate Courses for Teachers, Engineers and Doctors. The leave shall be granted only with due regard to the usefulness of the higher studies to the public service. . . .

(italics spplied)

25. First, both Rule 91 and 91A are similar in content, but apply under different circumstances. To me it appears that Rule 91 caters to the needs of employees at the entry level, trying to firm up their career prospects by improving their basic qualification, such as under-graduation. On the other hand, Rule 91A seems to apply to empl

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

oyees with considerable service, five years or more. The leave is available for pursuing only postgraduation in the sphere of their duties. And their acquiring the qualification must be beneficial to the State. The Rule also exemplifies the likely beneficiaries: teachers, engineers, and doctors could avail themselves of the benefit under Rule 91A. 26. Indeed, had the teachers not mentioned that they wanted the leave 'without allowance', perhaps, that would have constrained the authorities to examine the issue and, possibly, apply Rule 91A, as held in Krishnan. But the statutory mandate of Rule 88 forecloses such an option or obviates such necessity. 27. Of the decisions cited, in Mahesh, the petitioner pursued M.Sc. It was held to be beneficial to the service. Krishnan, I reckon, is identical and squarely binds. His Lordship, in that case, analyzed the statutory scheme and also distinguished, rightly, Mahesh. Even in Anish, which followed Mahesh, the petitioner pursued M.Sc., a course that would enhance the teacher’s subject knowledge and thus be of benefit to the state. To conclude, I reckon that Rule 88(i)(b) is inescapable, and the teachers cannot show an accusing finger at the Government that it had deprived them of a benefit. For the teachers themselves have WPC No.11755/2011 16 opted to have leave without allowance. I, therefore, hold that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No order on costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

17-08-2020 Rohit Verma Versus State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Education Lukcnow & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
16-07-2020 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Registered under Society's Registration Act, 1860, Through its founder- President M.N. Navale & Another Versus Directorate of Technical Education Maharashtra State & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Mohan Shamrao Shinde Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Department of Higher & Technical Education, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-07-2020 Khem Raj Verma & Others Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
01-07-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of General Education, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus C.R. Vinod Kumar High Court of Kerala
18-06-2020 C.C. Girija & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
11-06-2020 K.K. Jayasree Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary to Govt., Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-06-2020 Dr. Debajit Das & Another Versus Williamson Magor Education Trust & Others & Others High Court of Gauhati
03-06-2020 M. Karunya Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 The Correspondent, St.Antony's Girls Primary School, Near Head Police Office, Coimbatore & Others Versus The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Dr. A.K. Sheik Manzoor Versus State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Dr. K.Gautham Versus The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-05-2020 Joe Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
27-05-2020 M. Lokesh & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Department of Education, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
18-05-2020 K. Gautham Versus The Director of Medical Education, EVR Periyar Salai, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Kashish Gupta Versus The Central Board of Secondary Education, Represented by its Secretary, Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
27-04-2020 P. Chandrasekhar Rao & Another Versus The State of Telangana Rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-04-2020 Naresh Kumar Versus Director of Education & Another High Court of Delhi
15-04-2020 Dr. Srinivas Guntupalli Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Guntur & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-04-2020 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, through its Registrar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
23-03-2020 Delhi Public School, East Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-03-2020 Deepak & Another Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 SanatombaHaobam Versus The State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner/ Secretary(Education-S), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Imphal & Others High Court of Manipur
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 A. Pandi Selvi Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-03-2020 Yogesh Kalyanrao Ghadage And Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-03-2020 Nitin Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, Through, Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
12-03-2020 Navanita Chowdhury Versus Govt. of NCT, Delhi, Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education & AnotherQ Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
12-03-2020 The Adirampattinam Education Trust, Adirampattinam Represented by its Secretary, M.S. Tajudeen & Another Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Secretariate, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-03-2020 Pramodini Mangesh Rukari Versus The Superintendent, Pay & Provident Fund Unit, Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-03-2020 Dnyaneshwar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Mukund Marutirao Jagtap Versus Superintendent, Pay & Provident Fund Unit, Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Hasina Siraj Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra Secretary through Department of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Madras Christian College Higher Secondary School, rep. by its Head Master, Chetpet Versus The Secretary to Government, Govt. of Tamilnadu, School Education (C2)Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Dr. Nishigandha Ramchandra Naik Versus State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Aided Primary School, rep. by its Secretary, Thazhambadi, Puduchathiram Union, Namakkal District Versus The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 Dr. Anil D. Garje Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Higher & Technical Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 S. Aruputharaj Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Education, Science & Technology, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Indian Society for Technical Education, Rep., by its Executive Secretary, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi Versus Anna University, Rep., by its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 U.M. Aided Primary School, Prakasam Dist. Rep. by its Correspondent Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary School Education Depart. & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
27-02-2020 Taraknath College of Education Versus National Council For Teacher Education & Another High Court of Delhi
26-02-2020 Manager & Correspondent, Madasa E.Deeniyath Aided Elementary School, Ambur Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Nitin Ramesh Khedekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-02-2020 Vaishali Raoso Ghadage & Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2020 Raya Xavier (Died) & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-02-2020 S. Raghavendhiran & Others Versus The Commissioner, Director of Technical Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-02-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Chennai & Another Versus The Secretary/Correspondent, Loyola College [Autonomous], Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 P. Saju, Senior Grade Printer, Government Central Press, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
20-02-2020 P. Peter Paul Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 Blessen Baby (Minor), Represented by next friend, father, M.C. Baby, Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Secretariat Annex, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 The Manager, St. Paul's Higher Secondary School, Kozhinjampara Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 S. Athirai Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government Department of Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Banajit Deka Versus The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
18-02-2020 Mohd Shafiq & Others Versus Anuradha Gupta, Director School Education & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
13-02-2020 Baheti Education Trust Versus Nemaram High Court of Rajasthan
11-02-2020 G. Thamaraiselvi Versus Secretary To Government, Union of India, (Department of Higher Education), Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-02-2020 Mukulika Sharma & Others Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secondary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
10-02-2020 K. Varada Pillai Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 St.John's English Primary School & Another Versus Education Officer, (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-02-2020 Mahendra Singh Thakur Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
04-02-2020 D. Ramchander Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Secretary School Education Department Secretariat & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-01-2020 Shirpur Education Society Through Its Principal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
31-01-2020 V. Saraswathi Versus The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-01-2020 Sumant Kumar Dixit Versus Central Public Information Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education Central Information Commission
30-01-2020 M.V. Rangarajan Versus State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 S. Sakthivel Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 Dr. M. Abdul Salam Versus The State of Kerala Represented by Its Principal Secretary To Government, Department of Higher Education, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
28-01-2020 B. Jayalakshmi Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by the Principal Secretary Department of Education (Primary & Secondary) & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-01-2020 T.V. Thomas, P.D. Teacher, Govt. U.P. School, Thottumukkom, Kozhikode & Others Versus Joint Secretary, General Education Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-01-2020 The Trustee Hidaya Educational & Charitable Trust, Muhammed Umer, Thiruvananthapuram Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Department of General Education, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-01-2020 G. Maria Antony Michael Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-01-2020 E. Saral Versus The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai & Others Versus P. Manikandan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 J. Anulatha Versus The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-01-2020 S.M. Zaheer Alam Versus National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) through its Chairperson, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-01-2020 L. Innacentia Versus The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-01-2020 Prakash Shikshan Mandal's Loknete Versus State of Maharashtra, through its Department of Medical Education & Drugs & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-01-2020 P. Subramani Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt., Department of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary to Government, High Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Another Versus C.C. Devayani & Another High Court of Kerala
09-01-2020 K. Shobana Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Alok Kumar & Others Versus State of U.P. Thru Special Secy. Basic Education Lko. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
06-01-2020 Surinder Nath Kesar Versus Board of School Education & Others Supreme Court of India
06-01-2020 Kothandaraman High School, Rep. by its Correspondent, Uthukottai Versus The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 I. Sundararajan Versus Director, Tamil Nadu School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-01-2020 Dr. V. Leelavathi Versus State of Karnataka Department of Health & Family Welfare (Medical Education) Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-01-2020 A. Mary Lithiya Nithilakumari Versus The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 J. Vijay Anthony Versus The Director, Directorate of Medical Education, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 A. Bharathi Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 Dnyanganga Shikshan Sanstha & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, School Education Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-12-2019 Sunita Laxmanrao Fuke Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-12-2019 Dnyanganga Shikshan Sanstha, Aurangabad, through its Secretary, namely, Yogesh Vinayakrao Patil Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-12-2019 S. Ramachandran Versus The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 Rana Pratap Singh Versus Vittiya Evam Lekha Adhikari, District Basic Education Officer & Others Supreme Court of India