Karnataka High Court
Sri C Bosaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:20304
WP No. 23133 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 23133 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI C. BOSAIAH,
S/O LATE CHINNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ASSISTANT MASTER
SRI SHARANA CHANNAPPASWAMY
HIGH SCHOOL, LALAGHATTA
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RESIDENT OF D. NO. 1183/B
WARD NO. 10, 1ST CROSS,
KEMPATAIAH BEEDI,
BEHIND SBI BANK,
CHANNAPATNA,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 501.
...PETITIONER
Digitally (BY SRI. BALARAJ A. C., ADVOCATE)
signed by
CHANDANA
BM AND:
Location:
High Court 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
of Karnataka REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR FOR SECONDARY EDUCATION
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:20304
WP No. 23133 of 2023
HC-KAR
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
ZILLA PANCHAYATH BHAVAN, B.M. ROAD,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 511.
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 511.
5. SRI SHARANA CHINNAPPASWAMY SHCEDULED
CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE EDUCATION SOCEITY
LALAGHATTA TRIBE,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 501.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. P. RAJA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. ANU1/KHA/AH.PRANEMAKATHI
ANUMODANE/35/2021-22 1234 DT. 14/08/2023 (10/08/2023) ISSUED
BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement bearing No.Anu1/Kha/Ah.PraNeMaKaThi/Anumodane/35/202 -3- NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR 1-22 1234 dt: 14.08.2023 (10.08.2023) issued by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-P;
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Master in Arts at 5th respondent School and in the light of the recommendations of the 4th and 3rd respondents dt:
10.08.2021 and 12.12.2022 vide Annexures-J and K;
iii) Alternatively, direct the respondents 2 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner with aid to the post of Assistant Master in Arts in the 5th respondent - School, retrospectively;
iv) And to issue such other orders, directions as deems fit in the circumstances of the case and allow the above writ petition with costs, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5 and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned endorsement at Annexure-P dated 14.08.2023 rejecting the request/application -4- NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Master at respondent No.5 - School is contrary to the principles laid down in the case of Siraj Ahmad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. -
Civil Appeal No.9412/2019 dated 13.12.2019, as well as the recommendations of respondent Nos.3 and 4 at Annexures-J and K and as such, the impugned endorsement deserves to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siraj Ahmad (supra), which reads as under:
"1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 11-9-2017, passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in W.P.(Service Bench)No.1020 of 2015, thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR
4. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :
The appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Junior Engineer in the pay scale of Rs 485-860 by order dated 30-3-1987, issued by Respondent 1. It is not in dispute that the said order was issued with prior approval of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. It is also not in dispute that the said appointment was made after the post was advertised and after the appellant underwent the selection process conducted by the State under the provisions of the U.P. Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"). Pursuant to the selection and appointment, the appellant joined with the Agra Development Authority on 8-4-1987. While in service, the appellant obtained the degree in BSc Engineering from Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh on 8-6- 1987. The appellant, thereafter, through proper channel communicated the respondents the fact regarding obtaining of requisite qualification and being eligible for consideration for promotion, to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), in the Centralised Services under sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 of the said Rules. It is the case of the appellant that the State Government had sought information from all the development authorities vide communication dated 25-9- 1987 with regard to the number of Junior Engineers possessing the degree of Bachelor of Engineering/AMIE. In compliance to the said communication, the Vice-Chairman of Agra Development Authority informed the State Government that in Agra Development Authority the appellant was the -6- NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR only Junior Engineer, who was possessing the degree of Bachelor of Engineering.
5. Since the appellant was not promoted, he made various representations to the State seeking promotion. The appellant had claimed the promotion from 18-1-1995 i.e. the date on which the juniors to the appellant were promoted. The appellant's claim for promotion came to be rejected on 16-4-2015. Hence, the appellant approached the Division Bench of the High Court by way of writ petition.
The petition came to be rejected. Hence, the present appeal.
6. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant's services already stood regularised from 23-11- 2002 and as such in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra and others, the appellant was entitled for promotion by treating his continuous service from the date of initial appointment.
7. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that as a matter of fact the Allahabad High Court itself, Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and others, vide judgment and order dated 19-8-2011, had directed the State Government to consider the case of said Shri Dwivedi for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer after completion of 10 years of service as Junior Engineer, provided they had a BE/AMIE degree.
8. It is further submitted that vide subsequent order dated 9-11-2011, the Allahabad High Court had -7- NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR modified its order in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. (supra), wherein it is observed that the petitioner therein i.e. Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi, became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer as soon as he obtained qualification of AMIE in 1993. He submits that vide said order, it was held that if the promotion was given to any other Junior Engineer, junior to the petitioner therein, the petitioner therein was also eligible for promotion from the said date along with consequential benefits. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Single Judge who passed the order in the case of Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi was the same learned Judge heading the Bench in the case of the present appellant and, as such, there was no reason as to why the appellant ought not to have been given the same benefit.
9. Per contra, Mr V. Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, submits that under the Rules it was necessary that the appointment was made with concurrence of U.P. Public Service Commission. He submits, undisputedly the appellant's appointment was not made with the concurrence of U.P. Public Service Commission. It is, therefore submitted that as such the appellant's appointment will have to be termed as illegal. He, therefore submits that the High Court has rightly refused to take into consideration the services of the appellant, prior to the date on which his services came to be regularised.
-8-NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR
10. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Undisputedly, the appellant's initial appointment in the year 1987 was after the advertisement was issued for the posts in centralised services constituted under the said Rules. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was selected after he underwent the entire selection process by competing with other persons, who had also applied for the said post. The only issue that the learned Judges of the Division Bench have found against the appellant is that the appellant's selection was not made in due consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission.
11. This Court in State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, after considering the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, observed thus :
"12. The question which, thus, arises for consideration, would be : Is there any distinction between "irregular appointment" and "illegal appointment"? The distinction between the two terms is apparent. In the event the appointment is made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment would be an illegal one; whereas there may be cases where, although, substantial compliance with the constitutional scheme as also the rules have been made, the appointment may be irregular in the sense that some provisions of some rules might not have been strictly adhered to."
12. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that the distinction between irregular appointment and illegal appointment is clear. It has been held that in the event appointment is made in total disregard to the constitutional -9- NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR scheme and the recruitment rules framed by the employer, where the employer is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment will be illegal one. It has, however, been held that where although, substantial compliance with the constitutional scheme, as also the Rules have been made, the appointment would become irregular inasmuch as some provisions of some rules have been adhered to.
13. Subsequently, another Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari also had an occasion to consider the issue. The Court observed thus : (SCC p. 250, para 7) "7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularisation" enunciated in Umadevi (3), if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular."
14. This Court held that where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointment will be considered to be illegal. However, when the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and is working against the sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.
15. As already discussed hereinabove, the appellant had applied in pursuance to the advertisement issued by State for the post in the centralised services under the provisions of the said Rules. The appellant had participated in the selection process along with the other competitors. The appellant was possessing the requisite qualification and was selected after competing with others and was appointed against the sanctioned posts for a period of one year. Undisputedly, the appellant thereafter, has continuously rendered his services, till the date of regularisation of his services i.e. on 23-11-2002 and, even thereafter, till date. As such, the appellant's case would be on a much better pedestal than the one which falls for consideration in M. L. Kesari case (Supra).
16. It can thus be seen that the only issue which is found against the appellant is that prior to appointment there was no concurrence of the U.P. Public Service Commission. It can thus be seen that the appointment of the appellant at the most can be termed as irregular and not illegal.
17. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of the Constitution Bench judgment of this
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. (supra) , the Constitution Bench has observed thus :
"13. When the cases were taken up for hearing before us, it was faintly suggested that the principle laid down in Patwardhan case [(1977) 3 SCC 399 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 391: (1977) 3 SCR 775] was unsound and fit to be overruled, but no attempt was made to substantiate the plea. We were taken through the judgment by the learned counsel for the parties more than once and we are in complete agreement with the ratio decidendi, that the period of continuous officiation by a government servant, after his appointment by following the rules applicable for substantive appointments, has to be taken into account for determining his seniority; and seniority cannot be determined on the sole test of confirmation, for, as was pointed out, confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of government service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies. The principle for deciding inter se seniority has to conform to the principles of equality spelt out by Articles 14 and 16. In Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P. [(1980) 4 SCC 226 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 531: (1981) 1 SCR 449] and Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Committee v. R.K. Kashyap [1989 Supp (1) SCC 194 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 253: (1989) 9 ATC 784] , with which we are in agreement. In Narender Chadha v. Union of India [(1986) 2 SCC 157 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 226: (1986) 1 SCR 211] the officers were promoted although without following the procedure prescribed under the rules, but they continuously worked for long periods of nearly 15-20 years on the posts without being reverted. The period of their continuous officiation was directed to be counted for seniority as it was held that any other view would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16. There is considerable force in this view also. We, therefore, confirm the principle of counting towards seniority the period of continuous officiation following an appointment made in accordance with the rules prescribed for regular substantive appointments in the service."
18. The Constitution Bench in unequivocal terms holds that, if an appointment is made by way of stopgap
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR arrangement without considering the claims of all the eligible persons and without following the rules of appointment, the experience of such appointment cannot be equated with the experience of a regular appointee, because of qualitative difference in the appointment. It however holds that if the appointment is made after considering the claims of all the eligible candidates and the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules made for regular substantive appointments, there is no reason to exclude the officiating service for purpose of seniority.
19. The Constitution Bench concludes thus :
"47. To sum up, we hold that:
(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.
The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stopgap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.
(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted."
20. It can thus clearly be seen that the Constitution Bench in unequivocal terms holds that if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the Rules, but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR accordance with the Rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.
21. It is not in dispute that except the concurrence of the U.P. Public Service Commission the appointment of the appellant has been made after following the procedure prescribed under the said Rules. The appellant has, uninterruptedly, served till the regularisation of his service which was made in accordance with the Rules. It can thus be seen that the case of the present appellant is squarely covered by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. (supra).
22. It is further to be noted that the respondent had issued an office memorandum dated 11-3-1994 thereby, providing for relaxation of the condition which prescribed minimum 10 years, service in the post of Junior Engineer. Schedule 3 to the said Rules provided that for being eligible to the promotion of Assistant Engineer along with the educational qualification a candidate must possess 10 years' service, in the post of Junior Engineer on 1st July of the selection year. By the said office memorandum, the Government provided that 5% of the posts out of 50% promotional quota are to be reserved by extending relaxation to such of the Junior Engineers, who have passed BE or AMIE examination. It further provided that in case candidates possessing BE/AMIE examination were not available, the post should be filled in from non-Graduate Junior Engineers. As discussed hereinabove, it is to be noted that the Government had also sought information from the
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR development authorities with regard to the number of persons possessing the requisite BE/AMIE degree. In response to the said communication, the Agra Development Authority had intimated the respondent State the name of the appellant being the only person possessing the said qualification.
23. We further fail to appreciate as to how the same High Court could have considered the case of two employees differently when they were similarly circumstanced. It is not in dispute that the present appellant as well as Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi were selected through the same selection process though their orders of appointment differs. It will be appropriate to refer to the observation made by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 3421 of 1996 in R.P. Dwivedi v. State of U.P. [R.P. Dwivedi v. State of U.P., 2011 SCC OnLine All 2851] which reads thus :
"Upon perusal of the Government Orders dated 26-8- 1992 as well as 11-3-1994, I find force in the submission of the petitioner, therefore, I am of the view that as soon as the petitioner obtained the qualification of AMIE in 1993, he became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Though only gaining the qualification does not create right of promotion, but I am of the view that if thereafter any promotion has been given to others particularly junior to the petitioner, the petitioner is liable to be considered for promotion from the said date along with consequential benefits. In light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case referred to hereinabove, I hereby also observe that the fact that the petitioner was not confirmed in the service, shall not come in the way of the petitioner's promotion as an impediment and the petitioner's services even on ad hoc basis on the post of Junior Engineer shall be taken into consideration for
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR the purpose of promotion to the higher post. Accordingly a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the higher post from the date of promotion of his junior within two months, after receipt of a certified copy of this order."
(emphasis supplied)
24. The above judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9-11-2011 [R.P. Dwivedi v. State of U.P., 2011 SCC OnLine All 2851] was carried in appeal before the Division Bench of the said Court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 75 of 2012 in State of U.P. v. Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi in its order dated 13-2-2014 observed thus :
"On due consideration of rival submissions, we find considerable force in the arguments of respondent. The condition of length of ten years' service was relaxed. The respondent, though appointed on ad-hoc basis as Junior Engineer on 24-2- 1987, had obtained the degree of AMIE on 10-10-1993 before Shri Sunil Dutt Sharma and Shri Sajid Hasan who passed the examination in 1994. As the vacancies were available and the private respondent was qualified to be considered for promotion in 1993, he should have been considered even prior to the aforesaid persons."
(emphasis supplied)
25. The State had also carried the said matter by way of Special Leave Petitions Civil (CC) Nos. 13830-31 of 2014 before this Court. The SLP also came to be dismissed on 12-1-2015. The State, thereafter, preferred a review petition, seeking review of the judgment of the Division Bench in State of U.P. v. Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi by way of
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR Review Petition No. 188 of 2015. The said review petition is also dismissed.
26. The only ground on which the High Court has refused to consider the case of the appellant is that in Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi, the Court had not considered the issue with regard to non-concurrence of the U.P. Public Service Commission. At the cost of repetition as discussed hereinabove, the appointment of the appellant at the most can be considered as irregular and not illegal.
27. It is to be noted that the appellant has obtained the Bachelor of Science (Engineering) degree in the year 1987 and though Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi had obtained AMIE in 1993, taking into consideration that Sunil Dutt Sharma and Sajid Hasan had obtained the degree of AMIE in 1994, the said Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi was held to be entitled for promotion on 18-1-1995 i.e. the date on which the said Sajid Hasan and Sunil Dutt Sharma were promoted as Assistant Engineer from Junior Engineer. We fail to appreciate the approach of the High Court in denying the promotion to the appellant when all the other three i.e. namely, Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi, Sajid Hasan and Sunil Dutt Sharma were appointed in the year 1987 through the same selection process and though Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi had obtained the degree in 1993 and Sajid Hasan and Sunil Dutt Sharma had obtained the same in 1994, whereas, the appellant had obtained the said degree in 1987.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR
28. It could thus be seen that in view of the office memorandum dated 11-3-1994, the appellant was entitled to be promoted immediately after the issuance of the said office memorandum as he possessed the requisite degree when the said office memorandum was issued. In any case, the appellant is entitled to be promoted with effect from 18-1- 1995 i.e. the date on which the juniors to him were promoted.
29. As already discussed, the non-concurrence with the U.P. Public Service Commission, at the most would make the appointment of the appellant irregular and not illegal. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the High Court erred in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The appeal deserves to succeed on more than one ground.
30. Hence, the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order passed by the High
Court dated 11-9-2017 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The order passed by Respondent 1, dated 16- 4-2015 is quashed and set aside.
(iv) It is held and declared that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) from the date on which his junior possessing the Bachelor of Engineering/AMIE has been promoted with all consequential benefit.
(v) In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs."
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20304 WP No. 23133 of 2023 HC-KAR
6. So also a perusal of the recommendations of respondent Nos.3 and 4 at Annexures-K and J respectively will clearly indicate that the said respondents have recommended appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Master in Arts at respondent No.5 - School.
7. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned endorsement and remit the matter back to the respondent No.3 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned endorsement dated 14.08.2023 at Annexure-P is hereby set aside.
iii) The matter is remitted back to concerned respondent Nos.1 to 4 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind the aforesaid judgments and recommendations within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS; List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5