Kerala High Court
Noorjihan A vs State Of Kerala on 5 February, 2020
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
W.A.No.1570 OF 2018
AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC 23611/2018 DATED 13-07-2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:
NOORJIHAN A., AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. LATE NAJEEB N.,
ACCREDITED OVERSEER, MGNREGS,
MUNROETHURUTHU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KOLLAM - 691 502,
RESIDING AT PANDALAKKAL VEEDU, THEKKEVILA P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 016.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.A.ARUNA
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY.
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER MISSION DIRECTOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME,
FIRST FLOOR, PUNARJANI,
T.C.26/1333(2), PANAVILA JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 MUNROETHUTUTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNROETHURUTH,
KOLLAM - 671543.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 2 -
connected cases.
4 THE SECRETARY,
MUNROETHURUTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUNROETHURUTH,
KOLLAM - 671543.
5 THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, MUNROETHURUTH,
KOLLAM - 671543.
R1-R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1417/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 3 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
W.A.No.1417 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 34354/2016 DATED 08-06-2017
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS:
1 BINDU THAYYIL T., AGED 42 YEARS,
W/O SUDHEER KUMAR,
THAYYIL HOUSE, P.O.ARAKKINAR, PIN-673028,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2 PRASEETHA P.K., AGED 37, YEARS,
W/O CHANDRASEKHARAN,
PAZHUKKADAKKANDI HOUSE, CHERUTHAYIL PARAMBA,
SREEPURI RAD, MANUR P.O., PIN-673328,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.A.ARUNA
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY.
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2 JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION &
JOINT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR (JPC),
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNEGS),
KOZHIKODE.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 4 -
connected cases.
3 KADALUNDI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
P.O. KADALUNDI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
R1-R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL
R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ
R3 BY ADV. SMT.M.SHAJNA
R3 BY ADV. SMT.UMMUL FIDA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1570/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 5 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
W.A.No.1139 OF 2018
AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC 19229/2018 DATED 12.06.2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:
SEEMA N, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.SREEJITH P.N.,
ACCOUNTANT-CUM-DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, MGNREGS,
BELLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BELLUR P.O.,
KASARGOD-671543,
RESIDING AT NEKLINGAR HOUSE, KANNINGAR P.O.,
MULLARIA (VIA), KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671543.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY.
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER MISSION DIRECTOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME,
FIRST FLOOR, PUNARJANI, T.C.26/1333(2),
PANAVILA JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 BELLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BELLUR P.O.,
KASARGOD-671543.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 6 -
connected cases.
4 THE SECRETARY,
BELLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BELLUR P.O.,
KASARGOD-671543.
5 THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, BELLUR P.O.,
KASARGOD-671543.
R1-R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.DINESH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1570/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 7 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
W.A.No.1602 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 16128/2018 DATED 13-07-2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:
ALICE JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O PAUL PETER,
THURUTHEL HOUSE,PERUMPADAVAM PO, ELENJI-686665,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.A.ARUNA
SMT.K.C.AISHWARYA
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME,
FIRST FLOOR, PUNARJANI, T.C 26/1333(2),
PANAVILA JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE SECRETARY, ELENJI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ELENJI PO,
MUVATTUPUZHA-686665, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
R1-R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
R3 BY ADV. A.N. SANTHOSH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1570/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 8 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
W.A.No.1621 OF 2018
AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC 24313/2018 DATED 19-07-2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SEBIMOL N. VARGHESE, AGED: 48 YEARS, W/O. BIJU P.D,
ACCREDITED ENGINEER(MGNREGS),
RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PAMPAKADA BLOCK,
RAMAMANGALAM PO - 686 663, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT PUTHEN PURAHYIL HOUSE,
VARIKOLI P.O, - 682 308, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SMT. MITREJI S. HEDGE
KUM.A.ARUNA
SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY.
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER MISSION DIRECTOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME,
FIRST FLOOR, PUNARJANI, T.C 26/1333(2),
PANAVILA JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAMAMANGALAM P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 9 -
connected cases.
4 THE SECRETARY,
RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
RAMAMANGALAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
5 THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT,
RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 663.
R1-R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.JUSTINE JACOB.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1570/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 10 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.2190 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9663/2019(G) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS:
1 KRISHNANKUTTY.O.B, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN,
DATA ENTRY OPERATOR-CUM-ACCOUNTANT,
POTTUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, BHOODANAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679334,
RESIDING AT ODINJIL HOUSE, BHOODANAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 334.
2 AJIL K.N., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN,
OVERSEER (MGNREGS), POTTAKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
BHOODANAM COLONY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 334,
RESIDING AT KAINIKUDY HOUSE, PATHAR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 334.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISISONER AND MISSION DIRECTOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME, FIRST FLOOR, PUNARJANI,
T.C.26/1333(2), PANAVILA JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 11 -
connected cases.
3 POTHUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BHOODANAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 334.
4 THE SECRETARY, POTHUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
BHOODANAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 334.
5 THE PANCHYATH COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT,
POTHUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, BHOODANAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 334.
R1-R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
R3-R5 BY ADV. SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1570/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 12 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
W.A.No.2191 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4725/2019(M) DATED 14/10/2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS:
1 GIRIJA DEVI C., AGED 36 YEARS,
ACCOUNTANT-CUM-DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
AJANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O. AJANOOR,
BELLIKOTH, KASARGOD-671531.
2 SMITHA M,
OVERSEER, AJANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
P.O. AJANOOR, BELLIKOTH, KASARGOD-671 531
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
KUM.A.ARUNA
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE
SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER AND MISSION DIRECTOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME,
FIRST FLOOR, PUNARJANI, T.C. 26/1333(2),
PANAVILA JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 13 -
connected cases.
3 AJANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AJANOOR P.O,
BELLIKOTH, KASARGOD-671 531
4 SECRETARY,
AJANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AJANOOR P.O,
BELLIKOTH, KASARGOD-671 531
5 THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, AJANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
AJANOOR P.O, BELLIKOTH, KASARGOD-671 531
R1-R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1570/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 14 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
W.A.No.2197 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1633/2019(D) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER NO.135:
KAVITHA.P.N., AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.P NAGAN,
OVERSEER, POTHUKALLU GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
BHOOTHANAM COLONY PO POTHUKALLU
MALAPPURAM DIST-679334
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.A.ARUNA
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 1, 2, 3, 220 & 221:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 RURAL EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER,
COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003
3 DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033
4 POTHUKALLU GRAMA PANCHYAT
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, BHOOTHANAM COLONY.P.O
POTHUKALLU, MALAPPURAM DIT 679334.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 15 -
connected cases.
5 THE SECRETARY,
POTHUKALLU GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
BHOOTHANAM COLONY.P.O POTHUKALLU,
MALAPPURAM DIT-679334
R1-R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
R4-R5 BY ADV. SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1570/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 16 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.2487 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32763/2018(U) DATED 26.11.2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:
BHARATH GOWDA B, AGED 26 YEARS
OVERSEER, BELLURU GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
BELLURU P.O.,KASARGOD-671 533.
RESIDING AT BOOTHAKOTYA HOUSE,
BELLURU P.O., MULLERIA,PIN-671 543.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
KUM.A.ARUNA
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 BELLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
BELLUR,KASARGOD-671 543.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KASARGOD DISTRICT,
COLLECTORATE,KASARGOD-671 001.
3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR AND JOINT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI NREGS, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT,
KASARGOD-671 001.
4 THE COMMISSIONER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
MISSION DIRECTOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI NREGS, FIRST FLOOR, PUNERJANI,
TC NO.26/1332 (2), PANAVILA JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 17 -
connected cases.
5 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT (DD),
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.DINESH
R2-R5 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1570/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 18 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.2547 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19916/2019(L) DATED 09.12.2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:
NAJUMA A.R., AGED 29 YEARS,
OVERSEER, PORUVAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
AMPALATHUM BAGAM P.O., PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM-690 522.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.A.ARUNA
SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 RURAL EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER,
COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.
3 DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS,
PUBIC OFFICE BUILDING, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
4 POROVAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
AMBALATHUMBHAGOM P.O., KOLLAM-690 520.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 19 -
connected cases.
5 SECRETARY, PORUVAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
AMBALATHUMBHAGOM P.O., KOLLAM-690 520.
R1-R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR (B/O).
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1570/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 20 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
W.A.No.158 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35907/2018(K) DATED 12.12.2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JITHIN M., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN M,
ACCOUNTANT CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
PAYYOLI MUNICIPALITY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 533,
RESIDING AT MADATHIL HOUSE, KIZHUR P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673 522
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
KUM.A.ARUNA
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,
AYYANKALI URBAN EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (AUEGS),
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
3 PAYYOLI MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PAYYOLI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 21 -
connected cases.
4 SECRETARY,
PAYYOLI MUNICIPALITY, PAYYOLI P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH FOR R1 & R2
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05-02-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1570/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 22 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
W.P(C).No.19229 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
SEEMA N., AGED 28 YEARS, W/O. SREEJITH P.N.,
ACCOUNTANT-CUM-DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, MGNREGS,
BELLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BELLUR P.O.,
KASARGOD -671543, RESIDING AT NEKLINGAR HOUSE,
KANNINGAR P.O., MULLARIA (VIA),
KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671543.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.A.ARUNA
SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER MISSION DIRECTOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME,
FIRST FLOOR, PUNARJANI, T.C.26/1333(2),
PANAVILA JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
3 BELLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
BELLUR P.O., KASARGOD-671543.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 23 -
connected cases.
4 THE SECRETARY,
BELLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BELLUR P.O.,
KASARGOD-671543.
5 THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, BELLUR P.O.,
KASARGOD-671543.
R1-R2 BY SR.GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH
R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.DINESH.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05-02-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1570/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 24 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.23611 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
NOORJIHAN.A., AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.LATE NAJEEB.N.,
ACCREDITED OVERSEER,
MUNROETHURUTHU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM - 691 502,
RESIDING AT PANDALAKKAL VEEDU, THEKKEVILA P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 016.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.A.ARUNA
SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE
SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER MISSION DIRECTOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME,
FIRST FLOOR, PUNARJANI,T.C.26/1333(2),
PANAVILA JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 MUNROETHURUTHU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
MUNROETHURUTHU, KOLLAM - 691 502,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 25 -
connected cases.
4 SECRETARY,
MUNROETHURUTHU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
MUNROETHURUTHU, KOLLAM - 691 502.
5 PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE,
MUNROETHURUTHU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
MUNROETHURUTHU, KOLLAM - 691 502.
R1-R2 BY SR.GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05-02-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1570/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 26 -
connected cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.24313 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
SEBIMOL B.VARGHESE
AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.BIJU P D,
ACCREDITED ENGINEER(MGNREGS),
RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCAHYATH, PAMPAKADA BLOCK,
RAMAMANGALAM PO-686663, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,
VARIKOLI PO-682308, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.A.ARUNA
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER MISSION DIRECTOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE,SCHEME,
FIRST FLOOR, PUNARJANI,T.C. 26/1333(2),
PANAVILA JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
RAMAMANGALAM P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4 THE SECRETARY, RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
RAMAMANGALAM PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 27 -
connected cases.
5 THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT,
RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686663.
R1-R2 BY SR.GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH
R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.JUSTINE JACOB.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05-02-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1570/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 28 -
connected cases.
K.Vinod Chandran & V.G.Arun, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------
WA.1570/2018, WA.1417/2017, WA.1139/2018, WA.1602/2018,
WA.1621/2018, WA.2190/2019, WA.2191/2019, WA.2197/2019,
WA.2487/2019, WA.2547/2019, WA.158/2020,
WP(C).19229/2018, WP(C).23611/2018, WP(C).24313/2018
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of February 2020
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
The writ petitions pending before the learned Single Judge, were posted before us specifically on our orders, along with the writ appeals. The issue agitated in all these cases is whether the appellants and the petitioners in the writ petition, who were appointed on contract, could be continued till the Scheme under which the appointments were made comes to an end. Seven of the writ appeals [W.A.Nos.1602/2018, 1417/2019, 2487/2019, 2190/2019, 2191/2019, 2547/2019 and 158/2020] are from judgments in writ petitions and three others [W.A.Nos.1570/2018, 1139/2018 and 1621/2018] from orders allowing the writ petitioners to apply fresh in the selection proposed, declining the prayer for continuance. One appeal [W.A.No.2197/2018] is from the vacation of the interim order, as against one of the respondents who moved to vacate the interim order granted in W.P.(C) No.1633/2019.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 29 - connected cases.
2. W.P.(C) No.1633/2019 is still pending and the apprehension expressed by the respondent, in the appeal from the order vacating the earlier interim order in the writ petition, is that service is not completed on all the respondents in the writ petition. In fact the writ petition was filed with just the State in the party array and later additional respondents 4 to 344 were impleaded, who are the various local bodies who made the contractual appointments in implementation of the Scheme. Service is not yet completed and Counter Affidavits are also not filed by many of the respondents. We looked into the files of the writ petition and found that many of the respondents still remain to be served and the apprehension expressed by the respondent therein, is genuine and justified.
3. The respondents at the outset submitted that first of the judgments passed in one earlier writ petition by similarly situated contract employees on identical issue was taken up in appeal and the same confirmed in W.A.No.243/2019 by judgment dated 15.03.2019. It is the decision in W.P(C) No.13660/2018, which was confirmed in appeal, that the learned Single Judge has followed in most of the judgments impugned in the instant appeals.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 30 - connected cases.
4. Smt.Thulasi K. Raj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, would assert that there was no consideration made in the appeal and hence there should be a fresh look into the issues. We cannot but observe that when a Division Bench has confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge, following which the impugned orders are passed, we could only look at whether there should be a reconsideration of the issue and in that context, by a Larger Bench.
5. Smt.Thulasi, addressing contentions specifically against the judgment in WP(C) No.13660/2018, argues that the learned Single Judge misinterpreted the nature of appointment of the petitioners, as one falling under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules [for brevity, 'the KS&SSR']. The appointments were under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 [for brevity, 'the Act of 2005']. It is for implementation of the Scheme contemplated under the enactment that the appellants were appointed by the local bodies. Having been appointed after a regular selection process, there cannot be resort to mere 'hire and fire', especially when, on their termination, the appointment again is continued on contract. Reliance is placed on W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 31 -
connected cases.
Muhammed Abdul Khader and Another v. Director General of Police, Assam and Others [(2009) 6 SCC 611] to contend that in a Scheme, where Ex-servicemen were sought to be appointed for a contract period of one year, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had come down heavily on the authorities and approved the directions issued by a learned Single Judge to continue the appointees, as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, co-terminus with the Scheme. Here also the appellants do not claim any regularisation, but only seek continuance till the Scheme expires or the intention of the Act of 2005 is fulfilled. There is no reason why experienced hands should be sent out and inexperienced people brought in. The appellants having been selected by a transparent, fair process of selection, their continuance need not be subject to the vagaries of the governing bodies of local bodies, whose political hue change with time and every election.
6. It is strenuously argued that it would be reasonable to continue the appellants, who have experience in the implementation of the Scheme and equally unreasonable to deprive them of an employment. The learned Counsel also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Piara Singh and W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 32 -
connected cases.
Others [(1992) 4 SCC 118] to further buttress her contentions. Conscious of the fact that this Division Bench had distinguished the aforesaid decision in W.A.No.2439/2019 by judgment dated 04.12.2019, the learned Counsel would draw a distinction from that decision of ours. In that case there was no Scheme involved and it was an appointment made, akin to that by sponsorship from Employment Exchange. Decisions of the various High Courts have also been relied on.
7. The further submission on behalf of the petitioners is that at least in certain cases, there is a stigmatic termination insofar as the Counter Affidavits having made allegations, which are in the nature of a misconduct. Reliance is placed on A.P. State Federation of Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd. v. P.V. Swaminathan [(2001) 10 SCC 83] to argue that even the assertions made in the Counter Affidavit could be taken note of and the termination found to be punitive and not of mere cessation of a contract.
8. Sri.Sathyanatha Menon, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Panchayat in W.A.No.2197/2019 contends that the Government itself had limited the period of service of the persons employed in the subject Scheme to W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 33 -
connected cases.
two years. Further, the Panchayat witnessed dereliction and irresponsibility on the part of the contractual appointee, leading to loss of considerable number of working days for the beneficiaries of the Scheme and such a person was not entitled to be continued. There was also a contention raised that the appellant does not possess the requisite qualification. Sri.Dinesh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Panchayat in W.A.Nos.1139/2018 and 2487/2019 points out that the terms of the contract between the appellants and the Panchayat speak of the period for which the appointment was made. The further extension granted by the Government has also now expired. The learned Counsel relies on Division Bench decisions of this Court to argue that the contract expires on mere efflux of time.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in W.A.1417/2017 submits that the term of the appellants ended as early as on 23.06.2016 and they are continuing on the basis of the interim order issued in the appeal. The learned Counsel would rely on the decision in Yogesh Mahajan v. R.C. Deka [(2018) 3 SCC 218] to argue that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. The learned Counsel for W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 34 -
connected cases.
the respondent Panchayat in W.A.1621/2018 submits that the contract period of the appellants expired on 31.07.2018. As far as W.A.No.2191 of 2018 is concerned, the period of the appellants expired on 19.02.2018 and Exhibit R4(a) is pointed out to contend that the State Government only prescribed continuation of contractual appointees for two years. The respondent in the other appeals also raised similar contentions.
10. We first consider the judgment in W.P(C) No.13660/2018, a reading of which does not commend us to find the decision having proceeded on the premise that the subject appointments were construed as those provided in Rule 9(a)(i) of the KSS&SSR. The learned Single Judge, after noticing the provision as also the judgments of this Court on provisional appointments made under the said Rule; adopted that principle in the case of the appointments made here. We specifically notice a sentence from the decision "though appointments under MGNREG Scheme are not made under the provisions of KSS&SSR, the principle underlying those Rules would apply to public employments". In fact the learned Single Judge had noticed a decision of this Court arrived at as early as in the year 1993, C. Latha V. State [1993 2 KLJ 497], where Piara Singh's case was considered W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 35 -
connected cases.
and distinguished, especially in the context of the peculiar situation existing in the State of Kerala; of heavy backlog of candidates in the Employment Exchanges for reasons obviously of rampant unemployment and highest density of population. The policy of the Government which found approval of this Court was to fill up by rotation from among the candidates registered in the Employment Exchange, till regular appointments are made through Public Service Commission, so as to ensure that maximum number of candidates registered at the Employment Exchanges get employment at least for 180 days.
11. It is the very same principle we adopted in W.A.No.2439/2019 while saying that "Minimum employment to the maximum people in a transparent manner sourcing it from a totally independent Governmental agency was the avowed objective as intended by the Employment Exchange [Compulsory Notification of Vacancies Act, 1959]" (sic). If a person appointed temporarily is continued uninterruptedly for long, then it would defeat the very statutory purpose of spreading casual employment opportunities to the vast majority of unemployed, ensuring subsistence wages, at least for a certain period. We are quite conscious of the fact that the nature of employment as was dealt with by us W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 36 -
connected cases.
in the cited case differed considerably, but the principle equally applies in the nature of the contractual appointment herein also.
12. Having considered the decisions cited before us, the decision in W.P(C) No.13660/2018 as also the facts relating to the nature of appointments made, as available from the Judges Papers of W.P(C) No.13660/2018, we are of the opinion that the facts in each case assumes significance, in the application of law. We bank upon the observation made in Piara Singh itself at paragraph 25, which we extract with emphasis by way of underlining, supplied by us:
"As would be evident from the observations made and directions given in the above two cases, the Court must, while giving such directions, act with due care and caution. It must first ascertain the relevant facts, and must be cognizant of the several situations and eventualities that may arise on account of such directions. A practical and pragmatic view has to be taken, inasmuch as every such direction not only tells upon the public exchequer but also has the effect of increasing the cadre strength of a particular service, class or category."
The directions referred to are with respect to regularization and it equally applies in the case of W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 37 -
connected cases.
continuation of temporary employment; especially when there can be a clear distinction drawn between an ad hoc or temporary appointment to a regular post and a contractual appointment. The two cases referred to, in the above extract, also were with respect to regularization and are Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka [AIR 1990 SC 883 = (1990) 2 SCC 396] and Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority [AIR 1990 SC 2228].
13. We looked at Piara Singh itself at the first instance, where the question was of regularization of employees appointed on an ad hoc/temporary basis, which appointment had also been continued for the last several years. In both the States of Punjab and Haryana, the appointments were without reference to the PSC or Subordinate Services Selection Board and without adhering to the requirements for such posts. The appointments were also made initially for a period of six months, which were continued for long years. The State Governments themselves brought out certain norms for regularization, which provided for certain conditions to be satisfied by the employees. Those who failed to satisfy the conditions were declined regularization, who were before the High Court W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 38 -
connected cases.
along with some work-charged employees, daily-wagers, casual labour, etc. The High Court directed en masse regularization, which was found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be improper. While the matters were pending, there were certain amendments made, by which most of the appellants also stood a chance of regularization, as noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The question raised was the validity of the conditions in regularization orders, which stood upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was observed that: 'it is not the wisdom of the executive which has to be examined by the Court and though the Court may think it more desirable that the order should be in particular terms, that alone is not enough to upset the orders passed by the executive' (para 28).
14. The Court while considering the aspect of regularization laid down the guiding principles, which we extract with underlining by us for emphasis:
"21. Ordinarily speaking, the creation and abolition of a post is the prerogative of the Executive. It is the Executive again that lays down the conditions of service subject, of course, to a law made by the appropriate legislature. This power to prescribe the conditions of service can be exercised either by making rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or (in the W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 39 -
connected cases.
absence of such rules) by issuing rules/instructions in exercise of its executive power. The court comes into the picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights, statutory provisions, rules and other instructions, if any, governing the conditions of service. The main concern of the court in such matters is to ensure the rule of law and to see that the Executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. It also means that the State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the directive principles of the Constitution. It is for this very reason it is held that a person should not be kept in a temporary or ad hoc status for long. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long the court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly directs regularization. While all the situations in which the court may act to ensure fairness cannot be detailed here, it is sufficient to indicate that the guiding principles are the ones stated above".
15. The Supreme Court in Piara Singh interfered with the direction of the High Court that all ad W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 40 -
connected cases.
hoc/temporary employees continued for more than an year should be regularized. After allowing the appeals filed by the State against the en masse regularization ordered by the High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made some observations about the issue of regularization of ad hoc/temporary employees in Government service; of which the 1st and 2nd are relevant, which we quote hereunder:
"45. The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc / temporary employee by regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/ appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc / temporary employee.
46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority".
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 41 - connected cases.
The observations pointedly are with reference to ad hoc / temporary appointments made to regular/sanctioned posts. In the present case, the appellants do not have a case of regularization nor are the appointments made to regular posts. They only seek continuance in the contractual appointments beyond the period of contract, till the Scheme expires. They concede that if they are continued so, even for long years, they cannot and would not claim regularization. What they seek to agitate before this Court is their termination, after the expiry of their contract;
for making appointments again on a contract basis. If we take the corollary to the proposition they advance, there could be termination of contract employees only when there is a regular appointment made. We have to immediately notice that there is no question of a regular appointment, since there are no posts sanctioned for making regular appointment, nor is it contemplated under the Scheme.
16. The contention also is that the contractual employees once appointed be continued until the scheme is over; anchored on various decisions placed before us, wherein also the question of employment under a Scheme were under consideration. Mohammed Abdul Khader was specifically distinguished by the learned Single Judge. There the scheme W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 42 -
connected cases.
was one of Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners Scheme for Assam, for which the President had sanctioned additional posts which sanction was also on the promise that the Government of India would reimburse the cost of pay and allowances of persons employed in the additional posts, if they are filled up only by ex-servicemen. The scheme was valid for two years and to be reviewed thereafter. A Selection Board was constituted and ex-servicemen were selected and appointed; some in regular time scales of pay. Two appointees, one drawing pay under the time scale and the other fixed pay at the minimum of the pay scale, challenged the Circular of the Inspector General of Police which made the appointment contractual for a period of one year, with termination after expiry, on notice of 45 days. There was also a prescription in the Circular that on receiving the notice of termination, the incumbent could make a representation for fresh appointment; upon which the controlling officer would send a performance report based on which the continuance would be considered. The specific contention raised before Court was that if such artificial termination is made, the ad hoc employees would not have the benefit of continuance in service and would be denied the annual increments in the W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 43 -
connected cases.
pay scale. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 16 found that the scheme introduced by the Government of India does not contemplate or require such periodic termination and re-employment. Only ex-servicemen were to be selected and appointed, that too after undergoing regular selection process. The appointees also joined the scheme under the impression that they will be continued as long as the scheme was continued. The artificial annual breaks and re-appointments were introduced by the State agency entrusted with the operation of the scheme. It is on these relevant facts that the artificial termination in that case was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court finding that ad hoc appointments are normally co-terminus with the scheme; which, in the present case, is otherwise as we would notice a little later.
17. In Malwinder Singh Mali v. Punjabi University, Patiala [2000 (1) L.L.N.720], the appellant was appointed as a Public Relations Officer on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till the filling up of the post on regular basis, whichever was earlier. The petitioner's term was extended and later the Syndicate of the University resolved to fill up the post by regular selection and in the same meeting, took a decision to grant extension to all W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 44 -
connected cases.
ad hoc teachers/employees till a particular day. The petitioner was later terminated; but, however no regular selection was carried out and an Assistant P.R.O. was put in charge. There was a re-advertisement made, also substantially lowering the qualification, allegedly to enable the person put in charge to apply. The Punjab and Haryana High Court found the regular selection to be proper, despite the lowering of qualifications, but all the same directed that the ad hoc appointment would be continued till such appointment after a regular selection is made.
18. Dr.Barinder Kaur v. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and Others [2015 SCC OnLine P&H 12156] dealt with the appointment of a Principal on contractual basis and continuance for two years, after which the termination was effected handing over the charge to the Principal of one another College. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter found that in Umadevi a Constitution Bench disagreed with Piara Singh, only insofar as the regularization of ad hoc or temporary employees and the direction in Piara Singh that ad hoc or temporary employees should not be replaced by other ad hoc or temporary employees stood reaffirmed. We perfectly agree W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 45 -
connected cases.
with the aforesaid proposition; but, however, again notice that such declaration was made only in the context of ad hoc appointments made against regular posts. Another distinguishing factor is that the disputed appointments was to a solitary regular post, both in Malwinder Singh Mali and Dr.Barinder Kaur. Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Others [(2007) 13 SCC 292] was again an ad hoc arrangement made before a regular appointment was made, which was directed to be continued till such regular incumbents are appointed.
19. Narinder Singh Ahuja v. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare [(2014) 146 DRJ 167], considered the issue of termination of contract employees contrary to the decision taken to appoint such employees for one year at a time with annual renewal every year till the project existed. In fact, the specific condition with respect to contractual service as found in the scheme contained the following:
"All the contractual staff will be appointed for 1 year at a time and annual renewal every year to be done till the project exists, except discontinued for non-performance / under-performance/ abolish of the post/ show-cause notice issued and satisfactory response not received during previous contract period".
(underlining by us) W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 46 -
connected cases.
Therein also the petitioners did not seek for regularization and the termination was on account of out-sourcing the engagement of contract employment to a third agency. The decision of out-sourcing was also on account of lower wages paid to the employees which reason was found to be untenable by the High Court, since the outside agency had to be paid service charges. The attempt was only to replace the contractual employees, more importantly in a scheme which provided for annual renewal till the project continued.
20. Abhinav Chaudhary v. Delhi Technological University another [in WP(C) No.3512/2014] [2015 SCC OnLine Del 6780] was a case in which the petitioners were Assistant Professors appointed on contractual basis, who were sought to be terminated for the purpose of further selection to again make contractual appointments on the very same pay scales. The only difference was in the period. The reduction of the period was what was projected by the respondent for the purpose of making fresh appointments; which was not acceded to by the Delhi High Court especially noticing Piara Singh, Umadevi and Mohammed Abdul Khader. We again pointedly observe that here too, the contractual appointment was to a regular post. It was W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 47 -
connected cases.
observed there that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has found that one contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee which, with due respect, we do not feel is the proposition as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited cases. We, hence, are not persuaded to find otherwise in the present case based on this judgment, which is by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court.
21. The various decisions examined by us with respect to employment in a particular Scheme are also on the terms of the respective Schemes which permitted continuance of the ad hoc, temporary or even contractual appointees till the Scheme is over. MGNREG Scheme seeks to provide enhanced livelihood security of households in rural areas, by providing at least 100 days guaranteed employment in every financial year, whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. It is anybody's guess as to when the scheme would come to an end especially considering the poverty and unemployment of the rural masses in the country; which in this State, according to statistics, stand on better terms going by the rate of literacy, infant mortality rate, per capita income, the general living conditions in rural areas and so on and so forth. Still it is wanting in the desired standards and the overwhelming W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 48 -
connected cases.
density of population upsets the balance in so far as employment opportunities, especially those available in the rural areas. Section 18 obliges the State Governments to make available to the District Programme Co-ordinator and Programme Officers necessary staff and technical support as may be necessary for the effective implementation of the scheme. It is in this context, we called for the Judges Papers in W.P(C) No.13660/2018, since the learned Single Judge has referred to the counter affidavit, in that case, filed by the Assistant Development Commissioner MGNREGA State Mission.
22. We have carefully perused the Counter-affidavit available in the Judges Papers of W.P(C) No.13660/2018, which the learned Single Judge too referred to in the judgment. The MGNREGA Operational Guidelines, 2013 was brought out, wherein Chapter 4 provides for supporting staff to be hired on contractual basis to provide professional service at the National as well as State level. Recruitment policy for the functionaries will also be decided by the State Government. The State Government by a notification directed the appointing authority concerned, being the local bodies, to decide on the contract period, which order also contained a specific requirement of W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 49 -
connected cases.
concurrence of the Commissioner for Rural Development for terminating a person before the expiry of the contract. By G.O (MS) No.47/16/LSGD dated 03.03.2016, the State Government itself provided that the term of Accredited Engineer, Overseer, Data Entry Operator and IT Professional under the Scheme would stand extended to two years; now uniform to all local bodies. The power to appoint contract staff under the Scheme and to decide whether the contract is to be renewed or not is delegated to the Grama Panchayat by the State Government, vide G.O.No.1549/11/LSGD dated 29.06.2011. Hence, the Operational Guidelines of the Scheme specifically provided for contractual appointment, the period of which was also specified by the State Government. Here, the appellants cannot at all claim that they had an expectation to continue until the Scheme is completed since the contract entered into at the time of appointment specifically showed the period of contract. In cases where the appointment was for one year, definitely by the intervention of the State Government it stood extended for another year. However, on the completion of that period too, there could be no claim for further appointment made, by the incumbents. If the local body, which is the implementing agency, decides to terminate the appointees on W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 50 -
connected cases.
expiry of the period and proceed for a new selection, the decision has to be conceded, as one with due authority. In the new selection definitely the incumbents could also make a further application if they satisfy the requirements.
23. The appellants have a contention that they are experienced in the work of implementation of the Scheme and it is in the best interest of the Scheme itself that they be continued. As was noticed in Piara Singh, we are not concerned with the wisdom of the appointing authority, but only with the validity of termination of an employment on expiry of the contract period. The appointing authority may have its own reasons for proceeding with a fresh appointment, inter alia of the services of the present incumbents being not satisfactory as also the need for fresh hands, with new skills to be employed. In certain cases there could also be continuance, which decision would have its own reasoning of experience being counted and the exemplary work carried out by individuals. We find no warrant to hold that a termination simpliciter, on expiry of the contract period of appointment should show reasons especially, since it is not punitive. Yogesh Mahajan was placed before us by one of the respondents to contend that no contractual employee has a right to have his or her W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 51 -
connected cases.
contract renewed from time to time. It was specifically noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there was nothing pointed out as to a statutory right to have the contract period extended beyond the period specified.
24. As we noticed, the terms of the Scheme provide for contractual appointment and the agreements entered into at the time of appointment clearly indicates the period. On expiry of the period of contract, if the appointing authority decides to go for fresh selection, such action cannot be treated as illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory nor can it be seen as depriving the livelihood of the persons already employed who, with open eyes, took up a contractual employment for a specific period. The rampant unemployment in the State has a direct nexus to the density of population and the growing literacy. The State while providing contractual employment has a duty to ensure that the benefit reaches the maximum of the unemployed without confining it to some. There is no contention that any backdoor entries are being made and regular selections are conducted even after the expiry of the contract period. All the appellants assert that they were selected by a transparent process and we do not perceive any reason to assume that the selections made on the termination of their W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 52 -
connected cases.
contractual periods would be otherwise; on which allegation, if at all it arise, there are forums to agitate such grievance. We reiterate that the Scheme does not contemplate a regular appointment to posts concerned with its implementation at the grass root levels nor continuation of the appointees till the closure of the Scheme. The Scheme could extend for eternity, looking at the intention behind the enactment or be scrapped all of a sudden with a change in policy. Just as the shifting sands of time, welfare measures have a nebulous quality, which stands accentuated with the Scheme specifically providing for only contractual appointment.
25. C.Latha relied on by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 13660 of 2018 considered the appointments made under Rule 9(a)(i) of KS&SSR. We are conscious that the subject appeals are not of Rule 9(a)(i) appointments. Nevertheless we refer to that decision for the significant observations of their Lordships about the policy behind the framing of Rule 9(a)(i); which is applicable here too. The policy was found to confine the initial appointment to a specified period not exceeding 180 days and also not to permit re-employment of the same person. It was held that by this method, arbitrariness in regard to fresh W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 53 -
connected cases.
appointment is totally kept out and negatived. The policy was held to be peculiar to the State of Kerala, where number of jobs are limited and the persons available are in thousands. There is always a heavy backlog of candidates registered in the Employment Exchanges, who were to be granted temporary posting for less than 180 days, by rotation. It was also noticed that the jobs in private employment in the State are few and there is a clamour for Government employment. The policy was found to be not unreasonable, which policy is again reflected in the order of the Government, which confines the contractual appointment to a period of two years. The situation is no better in the State after almost three decades and unemployment, is still rampant; now also of the literate and qualified.
26. We do not see any restriction made of re-appointment under the Scheme or the guidelines, and it has been left to the discretion of the local body, which is the appointing authority. In that circumstance, we have to find that there is no restriction from re-employment; but, observe that the contractual appointment being specified by the Government for a period of two years, ideally there could be no re-employment without a fresh selection being W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 54 -
connected cases.
carried out. Otherwise, it would deny an opportunity to those aspirants among the public, a chance for obtaining such public employment, even if it is confined to a contractual period. For the purpose of maintaining equality in public employment even in the case of contractual appointments as also for the purpose of uniformity in the appointments under the MGNREG Scheme, after every contractual period a fresh selection ought to be conducted in which the incumbents, if not disabled by reason of not having the required qualification or having been once terminated on grounds of misconduct during the contractual period, would be entitled to appear afresh for the selection process. This we observe as the ideal situation and it is for the Government to decide whether it should be the norm; since it is a policy matter.
27. We also have to reckon the contention raised by the appellants that if an allegation is raised against an employee for termination prior to the expiry of the contract period, necessarily disciplinary action has to be taken. We specifically notice the decision relied on before us of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V.Swaminathan. There, the termination did not contain any stigmatic observation. However, when the matter was challenged before Court, a W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 55 -
connected cases.
counter affidavit was filed making assertions about the conduct of the employee; on the teeth of which it was found that it would be difficult to hold that the termination was not punitive. The decision was specifically placed before us since in some cases the counter affidavits in the writ petition raised such allegations. Definitely within the contract period if on an allegation, the employee has to be terminated, disciplinary proceedings should be taken against such employee. We hasten to add that if on the expiry of the contract merely for reason of the employee's service during the contract period being not satisfactory, the employee is terminated, there could be no stigma found, attached to such termination on expiry of the contract. Here, the allegation of non-satisfactory service is raised in certain cases, coupled with the ground that the incumbents are not qualified. When the incumbents are not qualified, even during the period of contract they could be terminated, after issuance of notice to prove their qualification and failure to do so.
28. In the appeals before us, even in individual cases where counter affidavits have been filed raising allegation of misconduct against the employee, if the contract period is over as of now, then a termination W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 56 -
connected cases.
simpliciter, without a stigma attached would be perfectly in order. We make this observation only since in such appeals the respondents have a contention that there was an interim order passed in the writ petition and after vacation of the same, the Division Bench too stayed the termination; for reason of which no proceedings were initiated against the incumbents and they were continued. Hence, we make it clear that in cases where the contractual period is not over, necessarily termination on allegation of misconduct can only be after following due procedure. However, even if allegations are raised against an employee in the contractual period or when continued after that for reason of interim order of Court; if now the contractual period is over and he/she has been continued on the basis of the interim order of this Court, necessarily on the dismissal of the appeals there could be termination simpliciter. We caution that, in such cases there should be no stigma attached and the terminated contractual employee should also be issued with an experience certificate and allowed participation in the fresh selection if they are eligible to be so participated on the basis of the notification published, unless they do not satisfy the essential qualification required. The mere allegations made W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 57 -
connected cases.
in the counter affidavit would not stand against such employees if their contract period has already expired. The appointing authority would also not be restrained from terminating their services on expiry of their contract period, provided no stigma is attached to such termination.
29. We fully agree with the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the orders vacating the interim orders of stay in solitary writ petitions. As we noticed, many of the orders impugned herein are passed relying on the judgment in W.P(C) No.13660/2018, which has been approved in appeal by another Division Bench. Here we notice the judgment of the other Division Bench, which is as follows:
"The appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis and the term of employment is also over. Nothing has been brought out to show that her employment is co-terminus with the scheme for which the petitioner was employed. The services of the petitioner has been terminated and a fresh contract has been entered into by the Panchayat with the additional sixth respondent. The learned single Judge has meticulously analysed all the legal and factual aspects and no infirmity at all.
The writ appeal is dismissed".
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 58 - connected cases. Succinctly, their Lordships have stated the legal
proposition, in inimitable style and we agree with the same by this judgment; which we confess lacks brevity.
We dismiss the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petitions; but, however, send back W.P(C) No.1633/2019 to the learned Single Judge having roster. The 4th and 5th respondents-Panchayat in W.A.No.2197/2019 is not obliged to participate further in the adjudication of the writ petition. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Vku/-
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 59 -
connected cases.
APPENDIX OF WA 1417/2017
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.47/16/LSGD
DATED 3.3.2016
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT INVITING
APPLICATION TO FILL UP THE POST OF
ACCOUNTANT CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR ON PROVISIONAL BASIS ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.7.2017 FROM THE SECRETARY, KADALUNDY GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER, KOZHIKODE BLOCK AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY, KADALUNDY GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE 2ND APPELLANT AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 2.2.2018 IN SLP (C) NOS.4057-4064/2018 PASSED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 60 -
connected cases.APPENDIX OF WA 1602/2018
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 14-06-2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A NO.1139/2018 W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 61 -
connected cases.APPENDIX OF WA 1621/2018
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 14-06-2018
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.A NO. 1139/2018
ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27-07-2018
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.A NO. 1570/2018
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 62 -
connected cases.
APPENDIX OF WA 2190/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
3.8.2018 IN W.A.NO.1621/2018.
ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 1.11.2017
IN W.A.NO.1417/2017.
ANNEXURE III COPY OF THEORDER DATED 2.2.2018 IN DIARY
NO.41387/2017.
ANNEXURE IV COY OF INTERIM ORDER IN W.A.NO.11398/2018.
ANNEXURE V COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 12.2.2008.
ANNEXURE VI COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.7.2009.
ANNEXURE VII COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.8.2007.
ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.B.P.O/11/2019 OF THE BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICE, MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME, NILAMBUR BLOCK DATED 13.11.2019 ANNEXURE R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.D.E.O/12/2019 OF THE BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICE, MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURLA EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME, NILAMBUR BLOCK DATED 19.12.2019 W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 63 -
connected cases.APPENDIX OF WA 2191/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 3.8.2018 IN W.A. NO. 1621/2018.
ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 1.1.2017 IN W.A. NO. 1417/2017.
ANNEXURE III COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.2.2018 IN DIARY NO. 41387/2017 ANNEXURE IV COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN W.A. NO. 1139/2018. W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 64 - connected cases. APPENDIX OF WA 2197/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE I COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 3.8.2018 IIN W.A.NO.1621/2018 ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.2.2018 IN DIARY NO.41387/2017 ANNEXURE III COPY OF INTERIM ORDRE IN WA.ANO.1139/2018 ANNEXURE IV COPY OF RTI QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 13.03.2019 BY ONE ABDUL GAFOOR ANNEXURE V COPY OF REPLY TO THE SAID QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 04.04.2019 ANNEXURE VI COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 12.02.2008 ISSUED BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR ANNEXURE VII COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2009 ISSUED
BY THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LSGD ANNEXURE VIII COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2007 W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 65 -
connected cases.APPENDIX OF WA 2487/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 3.8.2018 IN WA.NO.1621 OF 2018.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 1.11.2017 IN W.A.1417 OF 2017.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.2.2018 IN DIARY NO.41387/2017.
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO.1139 OF 2018.
ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 24.10.2019 IN W.A.NO.2190/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES.
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 2.2.2018 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP (DIARY)NO.41387/2017.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 66 -
connected cases.
APPENDIX OF WA 2547/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
03.08.2018 IN WA NO.1621/2018.
ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 01.11.2017
IN WA NO.1417/2017.
ANNEXURE III COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2018 IN DAIRY
NO.41387/2017.
ANNEXURE IV COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN WA NO.1139/2018.
ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
24.10.2019 IN WA NO.2190/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 67 - connected cases. APPENDIX OF WA 158/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 3.8.2018 IN WA NO 1621/2018 ANNEXURE 11 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 1.11.2017 IN WA NO 1417/2017 ANNEXURE 111 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.2.2018 IN DIARY NO 41387/2017 ANNEXURE IV COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN WA NO 1139/2018 W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 68 - connected cases. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19229/2018 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 17.06.2015 ENTERED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 17.06.2016 ENTERED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.952/12/LSG DATED 29.03.2012. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 31.01.2017 IN W.P.(C). NO.3205/2017. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 05.04.2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.11993/2017. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 01.11.2017 IN W.A. NO. 1417/2017. W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 69 - connected cases. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23611/2018 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE CONTRACT DATED 12/06/2016. EXHIBIT P1(A) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ATTENDANCE
REGISTER FOR THE MONTHS OF JUNE-JULY, 2018. EXHIBIT P1(B) COPY OF THE CLERK LEAF DATED 09/07/2018. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF EXPERIENCE AND CONDUCT WITHOUT DATE.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE DECISION NO.17(1) DATED 7/7/2018 OF 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REQUEST FORWARDED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 10/07/2018.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/10/2016 IN W.A.NO.2071/2016.
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.952/12/LSGD DAT3D 29/03/2012.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 31/1/2017 IN WP(C) NO.3205/2017.
EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 5/4/2017 IN WPC NO.11993/2017.
EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 1/11/2017 IN W.A.NO.1417/2017.
EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 12/04/2018 IN W.A.NO.875/2018.
EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/04/2018 IN WA NO.863/2018.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 70 -
connected cases.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24313/2018
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE CONTRACT DATED 24.06.2008
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 17.01.2009.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 1.7.2014 TO
SECRETARY, PIRAVOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REQUESTING TRANSFER TO RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER REQUESTING THE RELIEVING ORDER TO SECRETARY, PIRAVOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 31.7.2014.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.07.2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, PIRAVOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER (UNDATED).
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 1.8.2014 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1.8.2016.
EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 1.3.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PANCHAYATH DATED 13.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT DATED 3.1.2013 ISSUED BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR AND JOINT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME(MGNREGS).
EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE APPRECIATION OF DISTRICT COORDINATOR AND JOINT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION PROVIDED DURING 2010-2011.
W.A.1570 of 2018 & - 71 -
connected cases.
EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2016 IN WA
NO.2071/2016.
EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.952/12/LSGD DATED
29.3.2012.
EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 31.1.2017
IN WPCNO.3205/2017.
EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 5.4.2017 IN
WPCNO.11993/2017
EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 1.11.2017
IN WA NO.1417/2017.
EXHIBIT P19 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 12.04.2018
IN WA NO.875.2018.
EXHIBIT P20 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.04.2018 IN WA
NO.863/2018.
[TRUE COPY]