Kerala High Court
Balakrishnanunni N.P vs South Malabar Gramin Bank on 19 May, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/26TH BHADRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 34293 of 2006 (G)
-----------------------------------------
PETITIONERS :
----------------------
1. BALAKRISHNANUNNI N.P.,
INSPECTION WING, SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,
HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM.
2. RAJAN V.,
SOTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KIZHISSERRY.
* 3. SOMASUNDARAN T.Y.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, VALIYAKUNNU.(DELETED)
* 3RD PETITIONER IS DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.05.2008 IN
I.A.NO.5980 IN 2008.
4. RAVEENDRAN K.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MANIYUR.
5. MOHAMMEDKUTTY K.A.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, VALANCHERRY.
6. AHAMMED P.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, ELANKUR.
7. CHERIYAN M.J.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, VAZHIKKADAVU.
8. DOMINIC ABRAHAM,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KAKKUR.
9. RAJAN M.,
INSPECTION WING, SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,
HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM.
10. SEBASTIAN V.K.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, ANAKAMPOYIL.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU)
SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR
RESPONDENTS :
-------------------------
1. SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE,
MALAPPURAM.
Msd. ..2/-
..2..
WP(C).No. 34293 of 2006 (G)
2. BASHEERUDHEEN N.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KUTTIPPURAM.
3. PREMAKUMARAN E.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MEDICAL COLLEGE BRANCH,
CALICUT.
4. ASOKAN P.T.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, AYANCHERY.
5. RAMANI K.N.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KALPETTA.
6. ARAVINDAN T.V.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, CHLARI.
7. SASIDHARAN N.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, VADAKARA.
8. VELAPPAN P.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MULLANKOLLY.
9. MOHANDAS K.V.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, CHALAKKUDY.
10. KUMARAN B.K.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, PERAMBRA.
11. SETHUMADHAVAN C.G.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, THRISSUR EAST FORT.
12. MARYKUTTY P.,
CREDIT WING, SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE,
MALAPPURAM.
13. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI K.R.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, PERUMPADAPPA.
14. RAJAGOPALAN K.P.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, OMASSERRY.
15. MADHAVAN E.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KALLAI.
16. ABDUL KHADER C.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, PERINTHALMANNA.
17. RAVINDRAN K.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MELADY.
18. BALACHANDRAN K.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, GURUVAYOOR.
Msd. ..3/-
..3..
WP(C).No. 34293 of 2006 (G)
19. VARGHESE MATHAI,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, CHOKKAD.
20. GHEEVARGHESE M.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, S.BATHERY.
21. MAMAN T.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KALLAI.
22. SURESH T.P.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KAKKATTIL.
23. JAYALAKSHMI C.,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, POOKKOTTOOR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI
R2,R4,R7,R8,R10,R11,R17,R18,R20 TO 23 BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN
SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-09-2014,
ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO. 20987 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 34293 of 2006 (G)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REGIONAL RURAL
BANKS (APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION OF OFFICERS AND OTHERS
EMPLOYEES) RULES.1998.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.56/2006 DATED 01.08.2006 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NUMBER 70/2006 DATED 04.10.2006
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.10.2006.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
10TH PETITIONER DATED 07.11.2006.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CHIEF INFORMATION
OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.11.2006.
EXHIBIT P7(A): TRUE COPY OF THE RATINGS GIVEN BY THE BANK TO THE
1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7(B): TRUE COPY OF THE RATINGS GIVEN BY THE BANK TO THE
1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7(C): TRUE COPY OF THE RATINGS GIVEN BY THE BANK TO THE
1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7(D): TRUE COPY OF THE RATINGS GIVEN BY THE BANK TO THE
1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8(A): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8(B): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8(C): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8(D): TRUE COPY OF THE RATINGS ISSUED BY THE BANK.
EXHIBIT P8(E): TRUE COPY OF THE RATINGS ISSUED BY THE BANK.
EXHIBIT P8(F): TRUE COPY OF THE RATINGS ISSUED BY THE BANK.
EXHIBIT P9(A): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9(B): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9(C): TRUE COPY OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT.
Msd.
WP(C).NO. 34293 OF 2006 (G)
EXHIBIT P9(D): TRUE COPY OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT.
EXHIBIT P10(A): TRUE COPY OF THE RATINGS ISSUED TO THE 8TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10(B): TRUE COPY OF THE RATINGS ISSUED TO THE 8TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10(C): TRUE COPY OF THE RATINGS ISSUED TO THE 8TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10(D): TRUE COPY OF THE RATINGS ISSUED TO THE 10TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11(A): TRUE COPY OF THE RATINGS ISSUED TO THE 10TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11(B): TRUE COPY OF THE RATINGS ISSUED TO THE 10TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11(C): TRUE COPY OF THE RATINGS ISSUED TO THE 10TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 21.04.2008.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
SYSTEM FOR OFFICER'S ANNUAL APPRAISAL REPORT
FORMAT OLD OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
SYSTEM FOR OFFICER'S ANNUAL APPRAISAL REPORT
FORMAT (NEW) OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(C): TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.9/SMGB/2204/06/PAD
DATED 08.12.2006 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
8TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(D): TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF SHEET OF MARKS
OBTAINED BY THE CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION OF
OFFICERS FROM SCALE II TO THE SCALE III AS ON 31.03.2006.
EXHIBIT R11(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REPORT FOR
THE YEAR 2001 DATED 10.10.2001.
EXHIBIT R11(B): TRUE COPY OF THE SAME FOR THE YEAR 2002
DATED 30.09.2002.
EXHIBIT R11(C): TRUE COPY OF DO. FOR THE YEAR 2003 DATED 30.10.2003.
EXHIBIT R11(D): TRUE COPY OF DO. FOR THE YEAR 2004 DATED 05.12.2004.
EXHIBIT R11(E): TRUE COPY OF THE SAME FOR THE YEAR 2005
DATED 29.10.2005.
EXHIBIT R11(F): TRUE COPY OF THE DO. FOR THE YEAR 2006
DATED 25.07.2006.
EXHIBIT R11(G): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT DATED 10.09.2003.
Msd.
WP(C).NO. 34293 OF 2006 (G)
EXHIBIT R11(H): TRUE COPY OF DO. DATED 20.08.2004.
EXHIBIT R11(I): TRUE COPY OF DO. DATED 10.09.2003.
EXHIBIT R11(J): TRUE COPY OF DO. DATED 10.11.2005.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006
&
W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2014
JUDGMENT
Issue involved in both these writ petitions pertain to promotion of Officers in scale II of the 1st respondent Bank to 'Officers-Scale III'. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P1 Rules governing appointment and promotion of Officers and other employees in the 1st respondent Bank, to the extent it prescribes a minimum of 50% marks to be obtained in the interview. The select list prepared based on the selection conducted during the year 2006 and subsequently in the year 2008, are also challenged in this writ petition to the extent it denied promotion to the petitioners and granted promotion to the party respondents in both these cases. Since the issue raised are common in both these writ petitions, they were heard together and disposed of through this common judgment.
W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 2 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008
2. Ext.P1 Rules prescribes that, promotion to the post of 'Officer-Scale III' should be made based on seniority- cum-merit. The method of selection prescribes that, the selection shall be made by a committee based on interview and the assessment of 'performance appraisal reports' for a preceding period of 5 years as 'Officer-Scale II'. It prescribes that the number of candidates to be considered for promotion should be restricted 3 times of the number of vacancies available. With respect to the selection process it is mentioned that, the selection shall be done based on performance in the interview and based on the 'performance appraisal report' for preceding 5 years. With respect to the interview, the Rule prescribes 25 marks. It further specifies that the minimum qualifying marks in the interview is 50%. As per the Rules, 75 marks is allotted to the performance appraisal report. Thus total 100 marks is provided for the interview and the performance appraisal. In the case at hand the selection is challenged mainly on the basis that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 3 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008 at 50% for the interview is illegal and unsustainable. It is contended that the prescription of such cut-off mark for the interview, which is a subjective assessment, will lead to a situation enabling the selection committee to act arbitrarily in order to favour those candidates upon whom the Bank has got specific interest. Further it is contended that such conditions will be mis-utilised for denying promotion to candidates against whom a vengeance attitude is taken by the Bank.
3. While considering the factual situations, it is noticed that, among the petitioners in both these writ petitions petitioner No.6 and 10 in WP(C)34293/2006 alone are continuing in the service of the Bank in the cadre of 'Officer- Scale II'. All others were either got promotion in the subsequent selections or retired or resigned from service of the Bank. The 3rd petitioner in WP(C)34293/2006 had already withdrawn from the writ petition. It is stated that he also got promotion in a subsequent selection. With respect to petitioners of 6 and 10 in WP(C)34293/2006, W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 4 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008 they were not considered in the subsequent promotions because they have not given consent. However, it is noticed that with respect to those two petitioners they have not secured 50% marks in the interview conducted and hence they were not included in the select list prepared.
4. The prescription of 50% minimum qualifying marks in the interview is assailed on various grounds. It is contended that when the basis of selection is seniority-cum
-merit, preference should be given to the aspect of seniority and no competitive merit or comparative assessment can be adopted as criteria for selection. The petitioner relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in B.V. Sivaiah and Others V. K.Addanki Babu and Others [1998 (6) SCC 720]. It held that the criteria of seniority- cum-merit in the matter of promotion postulates a minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration. The senior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority. A comparative assessment of merit is not required in such cases for assessing the minimum necessary merit. W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 5 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008 It is held that the competitive authority can lay down minimum standard that is required and can also prescribed the mode of assessment of merit. Such assessment can be made by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal of performance based on the service records and interview and by prescribing minimum marks which would entitle a person for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Learned counsel further relied on the decision in Harigovind Yadav V. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank and Others [2006 (6) SCC 145= AIR 2006 SCW 2822]. The apex court held that the principle of seniority-cum-merit in distinction with the principle of merit-cum-seniority lays greater emphasis on seniority, whereas the latter emphasis on merits and ability. Referring to Sivaiah's case (cited Supra) and other decisions of the hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that interview can be held and the assessment of performance can be made only to assess the minimum necessary merit. If the selection is with reference to the comparative marks, it will be contrary to the rule of seniority-cum-merit. A W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 6 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008 selection process conducted otherwise, which was upheld by the High Court, was held to be illegal in the said case. It was held that the entire selection process adopted by the Bank against the above said procedure is vitiated and not in consonance with principle of seniority-cum-merit.
5. While considering dictum contained in the decisions cited above, it is to be appreciated that the hon'ble Supreme Court had only reiterated the principle that while seniority-cum-merit is the basis for promotion, there cannot be any comparative assessment of merit. But on the other hand seniority should be the prime criteria. At the same time it is permissible to have a minimum assessment of merit by prescribing a minimum eligibility in the matter of performance, which can be ascertained through interview and appraisal of the performance during the past service. Considering such principle, there cannot be any successful contention that prescription of minimum marks with respect to assessment of merit is unsustainable. In the case at hand, as per Rules the marks allotted for W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 7 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008 interview is 25, whereas the marks allotted for performance appraisal report is 75. Question arises as to whether prescription of minimum qualifying marks for the interview is sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the relevant Rule should have prescribed minimum cut-off marks for the interview and the performance appraisal, put together. The prescription of minimum qualifying marks for the interview alone will lead to arbitrateness, is the contention. Prescription of such cut-off marks in a subjective assessment will lead to bias and nepotism and it will offend principles of seniority-cum
-merit to be adopted as criteria in the matter of promotion, is the contention.
6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank had placed reliance on a later decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and Others V. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Others [2010 (1) SCC 335]. It is held therein that, when the promotion criteria is seniority-cum-merit the W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 8 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008 promotion is made on the basis of seniority of candidates achieving requisite benchmark of merit. It is held that the merit can be assessed either by written test or interview or on the basis of work performance during previous years, or by combination of these methods. It is held that prescription of minimum benchmark for merit and then making promotions according to the seniority out of the candidates achieving the requisite benchmark is valid under the concept of promotion by seniority-cum-merit. It is held that prescription of such benchmark is the function of the management, which is to be fixed keeping in view of the requirement of a post and the level of that post. Different benchmarks can be fixed for different posts subject to relevant Rules. Benchmark on the basis of marks is also permissible, provided the criteria is not so designed as to favour or exclude any particular person. The apex court held that judicial review in such case is very limited and the court may interfere only when there is lack of objectivity. In the case dealt with by the apex court 60 marks allotted W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 9 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008 for annual confidential records and 40 marks allotted for interview as well as fixation of 78% marks as benchmark for merit was held as reasonable and the prescription of such qualification contained in Ext.P1 rule was held to be valid.
7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank had pointed out a judgment of this Court in WP(C)13907/2010, dated 19/11/2013, in which a selection process for promotion conducted by the very same Bank in the post of Officer Scale-II, was subjected to challenge on almost identical grounds. Relying on Rajendra Kumar Srivastava's Case (Cited Supra) a learned Judge of this Court observed that prescription of minimum marks for written test, interview and appraisal, could not amount to violation of Ext.P1 Rules or any violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the method of selection prescribed for the said post the qualifying marks for written test prescribed was 40% of 60 marks. 20 marks each were allotted for interview as well as W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 10 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008 work appraisal. But in the notification inviting applications the Bank insisted that the candidates should get a total of 59 marks out of 100. This Court held that even though the Rule does not provide fixing of such minimum marks, it is valid in view of the decision in Rajendra Kumar Srivastava's case, wherein the Supreme Court had accepted prescription of minimum qualifying marks as 78 out of 100. It is held that Bank has not committed any illegality in prescribing certain minimum marks for promotion.
8. In view of the legal position remaining settled as above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prescription of the minimum qualifying marks for interview cannot be held as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is in no manner arbitrary or unreasonable. Hence challenge against Ext.P1 Rule fails.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner had raised a further contention that the selection committee had adopted a criteria in fixing the minimum qualifying marks of 65 out W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 11 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008 of the total 100 marks for interview and the performance appraisal put together. It is contended that such a criteria was adopted by the selection committee after commencement of the selection process. It is contended that stipulation of any additional criteria which is not prescribed under the Rules, in the midway of selection, cannot be sustained. He had placed reliance on a decision of the honourable Supreme Court in Hemani Malhotra V. High Court of Delhi [2008 (7) SCC (11)]. Question considered in the said decision was whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process was completed would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. Referring to an earlier decision of the apex court in K.Mnajusree V. State of AP [2008 (3) SCC 512] it is held that if the minimum marks are not prescribed before commencement of selection process, the authority concerned cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 12 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008 requirement/qualification that the candidate should secure minimum marks in the interview.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prescription of minimum total marks of 65 was not prescribed under Ext.P1 rules, nor it was prescribed in the notification inviting application. Hence it is contended that entire selection process stands vitiated and hence the impugned selection list need be quashed.
11. On the factual aspect, the above contention is applicable only with respect to WP(C)34293/2006. In the 2nd case it is revealed that prescription of total minimum qualifying marks was authorised in Ext.P2 notification itself. However, the said contention was resisted primarily on the basis that there is no supportive pleadings contained in the writ petition. Further learned Standing Counsel had pointed out that the surviving two petitioners (petitioners 6 and 10 in WPC 34293/2006) had not secured minimum qualifying marks in the interview. Hence they were not eligible to be considered for selection, even otherwise. Hence the W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 13 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008 contention deserves no merit, is the submission made. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that because of the change in the criteria introduced after commencement of the process of selection, the entire selection process itself got vitiated. Hence despite the non securing of minimum qualifying marks in the interview, the petitioners are entitled to challenge the select list prepared and also the promotion granted to the party respondents.
12. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bank in WP(C)34293/2006 it is categorically mentioned that, the Bank had authorised its Chairman to initiate selection process for promotion in order to fill up vacancies existing in scale-III cadre. Accordingly permission was accorded to fill up 22 vacancies existing as on 31/03/2006, pursuant to which Ext.P2 list of eligible candidates including 66 officers in scale II was published. It is mentioned that a Staff selection Committee was constituted for the purpose of conducting selection and the said committee after deliberations have taken a decision to W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 14 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008 fix the cut-off marks as 65/100. Hence it is contended that the prescription of minimum cut-off marks as 65 was taken even before the commencement of the selection process. But learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the selection committee has no authority to fix a such criteria and that fixation of such criteria was not made known to the candidates through the notification published.
13. However, it is to be noticed that all the precedence settled by the hon'ble apex court postulates that in the principle of seniority-cum-merit, seniority should be given prominence and only a minimum benchmark can be prescribed with respect to the merit. Unless a benchmark with respect to performance appraisal is not fixed, the process of selection cannot be completed following the above principle. Otherwise only a comparative assessment would be possible, which will offend the very basic principle of seniority-cum-merit. The petitioners could not, under the above mentioned circumstances, substantiate that any prejudice has been caused in the process of selection by W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 15 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008 prescription of minimum qualifying marks in the performance appraisal. Therefore this Court is not convinced that there exists any materials to hold that the entire selection process is vitiated on the basis that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for performance appraisal was not introduced by virtue of a decision taken by the Board of the respondent Bank or because it is not made known through the notification in question. Since this Court has already found that the prescription of the minimum qualifying marks on an aggregate for the interview and for the performance appraisal is legal and valid, it is of the opinion that the selection process need not be set aside based on the above contentions. Such a view is taken especially on the basis of the factual situation that, except the two petitioners mentioned above many others have got promotions in the subsequent selection process and an unsettlement of the entire scenario at this point of time would lead to severe prejudice to many persons .
Result of the above discussions is to that, none of the W.P.(C)No.34293 of 2006 & 16 W.P.(C)No.20987 of 2008 grounds raised in these writ petitions deserves merit. Hence these writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE MJL