Kerala High Court
Deepak Varghese vs The State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2020
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
W.P.(C).No.9929/18
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 22ND MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.9929 OF 2018(M)
PETITIONERS:-
1 DEEPAK VARGHESE
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. VARGHESE JOHN,
KUZHIKKATHOTTIL HOUSE,
MOONNILAVU P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 586
2 ALEN VARGHESE
D/O. VARGHESE JOHN,KUZHIKKATHOTTIL HOUSE,
MOONNILAVU P.O
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 586.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL
SMT.A.AMRUTHA VIDYADHARAN
SMT.MANJU RAJAN
SRI.NARAYANAN P POTTY
RESPONDENTS:-
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2 THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION
OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT(G)
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
3 THE VIGILANCE OFFICER
KIRTADS, KOZHIKODE 673 017
W.P.(C).No.9929/18
2
4 THE TAHSILDAR
MEENACHIL TAKLUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 589
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MELUKAVU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT 686 589
R1-5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL GP. SC ST N.K. PRAKASHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.11.2019, THE COURT ON 11.02.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.9929/18
3
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.9929 of 2018
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2020
JUDGMENT
1. The substantial prayers sought for in the writ petition are as follows:-
"(i) a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P16 Report and Ext.P19 Order;
(ii) an Order declaring that the petitioners belong to the Scheduled Tribe Christian Malai Arayan community;
(iii) a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction Commanding the 4th respondent to issue Community/Caste Certificate to the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners belong to the Scheduled Tribe Christian Malai Arayan community."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners are siblings claiming the status of members of Scheduled Tribe, Malai Arayan community. It is submitted that the petitioners' father and paternal grand father were members of the Christian Malai Arayan community and that W.P.(C).No.9929/18 4 the status is being denied to the petitioners by the impugned order on the ground that their mother belongs to the forward class Christian Marthoma community. Ext.P1 certificate of the father of the petitioners is produced to show that the petitioners' father belongs to the Christian Malai Arayan community. Exhibit P2 is the certificate of marriage of the petitioners' parents which was solemnised in the Holy Emmanuel CSI Church, Painter Valley, Idukki. Exhibit P3 is the birth certificate of the 1st petitioner and Exhibit P3(a) is the birth certificate of the 2 nd petitioner. The petitioners were born in Bharananganam. Exhibits P4 and P4(a) Baptism certificates would show thatt petitioners were baptised at the CSI Churches at Mangkombu and Painter Valley respectively. Exhibit P5 is the certificate issued by the Vicar of the Holy Emmanuel CSI Church, Painter valley to show that Korman, who was the paternal great grandfather of the petitioners, was converted to Christianity and was baptsised on 15 th October,1889 and accepted the name 'Abraham'. Exhibits P6 and P6(a) are the admission registers of the Lower Primary Schools showing the caste of the petitioners as Christian Malai Arayan. The Secondary School Leaving Certificates also W.P.(C).No.9929/18 5 shows the caste of the petitioners as 'Mala Araya Christian'. The Malai Arayan Samrakshana Samithy which is a community organisation has also certified that the petitioners are from Malai Arayan community and that though the petitioners are children of an inter-caste marriage, they have been accepted as members of the community. Exhibit P11 is the certificate issued by the Tahasildar to the same effect.
4. By Exhibit P12, the Tahasildar, Meenachil had refused to grant community certificate to the petitioners pending consideration of the issue by the KIRTADS. When the community certificate was denied, the petitioners had approached this Court and by Exhibits P15 and P15(a), the petitioners were directed to move the Scrutiny Committee with regard to the claim for caste status. Exhibit P16 is a report of the Anthropological enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer of the KIRTADS. The report states that the petitioners' father and paternal grandfather belong to the Christian Malai Arayan Community. However, the petitioners' grandfather had married one Mary Kutty after the death of his first wife Mariyam. The second wife, Marykutty, belonged to a Christian Roman Catholic W.P.(C).No.9929/18 6 family of Athipuzha and the marriage was an arranged marriage. In the said wedlock, two sons Varghese John, the father of the petitioners and Johnson John were born. Varghese John married Lailamma Philip (Aliyamma) who belongs to Christian Marthoma family of Ranni at Pathanamthitta and the petitioners are the offspring of the said marriage. It is found that the family of the petitioners' mother belongs to a forward community and that the members of the family were born and brought up in Ittiyappara under the religious and cultural background of Christian Marthoma Community. With regard to the Anthropological merit of the case, it is stated in Exhibit P16 that since the petitioners' father himself was a product of inter-caste marriage between a Christian Malai Arayan and Christian Roman Catholic, the Scheduled Tribe status of the father is partially vanished. It is stated that due to the acculturation and socialisation process towards non-ST community, he himself married a non-ST woman. It is admitted that the marriage between the petitioners' parents was solemnized in the CSI Church and after the alliance, the mother has become a member of the CSI denomination. It is further stated in the anthropological report W.P.(C).No.9929/18 7 as follows:-
"The maternal grandfather of the claimant was born and brought up at Udimood of Ranni, Pathanamthitta. He was a farmer. Majority of the maternal kin people of the claimants are engaged with reputable jobs in Middle East, all of them are professing orthodox Christianity of Marthoma denomination. The mother of the claimants admittedly was ordered and nurtured in the milieu of Christian Marthoma belief and cultural settings. The marriage between the mother and father of the claimants was an arranged marriage. It was formally solemnized at CSl East Kerala Diocese, Holy Immanuel CSl Church, Paintervally. At present Lilamma is managing tailoring enterprises at Munnilavau.
Since it is an arranged marriage both the paternal and maternal family of the claimants are in good harmony. The enquiry also reveals that right from the childhood the claimants observes various religiously important events and festivals such as Christmas and Easter along with the maternal family. In the statement furnished by the maternal uncle of the claimants, it is revealed that, the maternal family of the claimants is distinctly posses' higher social status as they are belonging to Christian Marthoma community. The maternal family of the claimants is accepted them as one among the member of their peer family members.
5. It is further stated in the report as follows.
" The marriage occurred in the grandfather and father generation the women are belonging to higher social status. Thus it is a social W.P.(C).No.9929/18 8 contract between Scheduled Tribe Man and Non Scheduled Tribe women. It obviously reckons that there is upward socio cultural mobility. According to the anthropological norms, the human culture is dynamic, not stagnant. The cultural values and ethos accumulated and socialization process accomplished by the claimants are largely borrowed from the maternal side. From father's side also it is being influenced partly. The claimants are nurtured by the parents who are partially ST Malai Arayan and who is totally not ST Malai Araya. In this context the claimants are not qualified to be deemed under the member of Scheduled Tribe, for the purpose of constitutional safe guards under Article 342 of constitution of India."
6. After evaluation of the documents produced and the contentions, the report concludes as follows:-
"The anthropological investigation as per Act 11 of 1996 as well as the documentary evidences as per G.O.M.S 109/08 SCSTDD date 20.11.2008, reveals that the claimants Mr.Deepak Varghese and Ms. Alen Varghese are not eligible to be considered as member of Scheduled Tribe, Christian CSI Mala Araya community of Kerala."
7. Exhibit P17 show cause notice was thereafter issued to the petitioners requiring the reply to the same. Exhibit P18 detailed reply was submitted by the petitioners. It is specifically stated in the reply as follows:- W.P.(C).No.9929/18 9
"The finding of the Officer that l and my sister was brought up in the tradition and culture of my mother is against all notions of truth. If we were brought up in that manner we would not have been the members of the CSI Church and would be nurtured in the belief and traditions of my mother's original denomination. We were born in our Grandfather's house and brought up there until his death. When my family was living in that home my father's brother (Mr. KJ James) was also living there with his family. We started our life in that home as the Grand children of Mr. K.A John who was a famous elder, Teacher and Physician of Malai Arayans and children of Varghese John who is also unquestionably a Malai Arayan. And we have never been known as the children of Lailamma Varghese and never have claimed the status or grown up as a member of our Mother's caste and culture before her marriage. We wonder how the enquiry officer came to such a finding. He has not produced a single evidence or material supporting his findings in this regard."
8. It is further submitted that the contention that the marriage between the petitioners' parents was an arranged marriage was completely opposed to facts and that it was a love marriage and was opposed by the families due to the difference in caste and social status. It is stated that the petitioners' mother chose to give up her status as a Marthoma Christian and became an active member of the CSI denomination. It is submitted that the petitioners were W.P.(C).No.9929/18 10 baptized at the CSI church, attended sunday schools there and celebrated all important functions with the paternal family. It is stated that their caste was recorded in the school records as CSI Malai Arayan and they were perceived as inferior to their class mates who belonged to Syrian Christianity and that they had faced several instances of humiliation and ill treatment in their childhood. Specific findings in the enquiry report are pointed out and contentions are raised in Exhibit P18 reply. However, by Exhibit P19 order, the Scrutiny Committee held that the claim of the petitioners that they belong to the Scheduled Tribe Malai Arayan community is not genuine and that they belong to the CSI Christian community. The reasons stated are as follows:-
KIRTADS had prepared the report regarding the claimants' caste status after giving ample opportunities to them for hearing and adducing evidence and after a detailed anthropological and field enquiry and genealogical analysis.
The Revenue Authorities issue community certificate to an individual without going into the merit of the case and without conducting detailed enquiry, and as per the provisions of Act 11/1996, KIRTADS is the Expert Agency and the authority competent to conduct enquiry into the caste status of a person.W.P.(C).No.9929/18 11
The school record/SSLC book cannot be considered as an authoritative document for proving the caste of an individual as the school authorities never conduct enquiry on the caste status of the child, rather they just record the caste status by the information gathered from his parents/guardian.
The claimants had not undergone the disabilities, disadvantages, indignities or sufferings of the real ST CSI Christian Malai Arayan community as they were born in a higher caste Christian community. The petitioners had failed to disprove the findings and conclusion of the Expert Agency. As per section 10 of Act 11/1996, the burden of proof shall be on the claimant.
9. The findings of the KIRTADS and the Scrutiny Committee are under challenge before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on Exhibit P20 Government Order to contend that while considering the claim for community certificate of children born on inter-caste marriage, the competent authority is to ensure whether the claimant was subjected to the same social status and followed the customs and traditions of the community and whether the community has accepted the claimant as its part. It is stated that if these conditions are complied with, the claimants are entitled to the caste status and the same cannot be denied on extraneous W.P.(C).No.9929/18 12 grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on the decisions of a Full Bench of this Court in MC Valsala and another v. State of Kerala and others [AIR 2006 Kerala 1] and in Indira v. State of Kerala [2005 (4) KLT 119]. A decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in State of Kerala and others v. Amal Krishnan and another [2019 (3) KHC 469] is also relied on.
10.The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit supporting the findings contained in the report of the Vigilance Officer, KIRTADS as well as the findings of the Scrutiny Committee. It is stated that the findings of the expert agency are rendered after conducting a proper investigation with regard to all relevant matters and that the orders of the Scrutiny Committee, which are rendered after considering the report as well as the petitioners' objection against the same, are not liable to be interfered with by this Court, unless the findings are found to be perverse and arbitrary. In the instant case, it is contended that the petitioners' father himself was a product of inter-caste marriage. By choosing to marry a woman from a forward caste community, he had made a W.P.(C).No.9929/18 13 conscious decision to forgo the benefits which would be available to his progeny. It is contended that the petitioners, who did not suffer the indignities of being born as member of a Scheduled Tribe community are only claiming the status to avail the benefits of the same.
11.The learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the expert agency had found that the marriage of the petitioners' father and paternal grandfather were arranged marriages and that the entry of caste in the school register or school certificates is not conclusive of caste status and that the burden to prove that they belong to the Scheduled Tribe community rested heavily on the petitioners, who utterly failed to prove such status. It is, therefore, contended that the report and the order impugned are liable to be upheld. The learned Government Pleader places reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rajan S v. State of Kerala and others [2007 (1) KHC 394] to contend that the caste noted in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate or certificate issued by parish priest is not binding evidence for proving caste and and the same cannot be used to disprove statements in a W.P.(C).No.9929/18 14 report of the Vigilance Officer, KIRTADS which is the expert agency empowered to conduct enquiry and to submit reports with regard to caste status. An office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home affairs of the Central Government on on 21.5.1977 is also relied on to contend that the main factor for consideration for ascertaining the caste status of the children born in a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal is whether the couple were accepted by the tribal society to which the tribal spouse belongs and whether the children were brought up as members of that community. G.O.(Ms) No.25/2005/SCSTDD dated 20.6.2005 and the Government Order dated 20.11.2008 are also relied on to contend that even if tribal status is found in favour of the petitioners would be available only for reservation in education and not for appointments. The learned Government Pleader would also place reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development [AIR 1995 SC 94] and in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others [AIR 2001 SC 393]. The decision in Chairman and Managing Director FCI and others v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others [(2017) 8 SCC 670] is also heavily relied on by the learned W.P.(C).No.9929/18 15 Special Government Pleader to contend that a false claim raised for a certificate to the effect that the person is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Tribe is a fraud played on the Constitution and that in deciding such claims, the court must weigh against an interpretation which will protect unjust claims over the just, fraud over legality and experience over principle. It is contended that where the claim is not sustainable, the courts are duty bound to direct the recalling of all benefits which accrued on account of the false claim and unless stringent steps are taken, the claim of persons actually entitled would suffer. It is vehemently contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that the petitioners, who had not suffered the disabilities as members of Scheduled Tribe community, are not entitled to claim the benefits reserved for the real members of the such community and that the contentions are, therefore, not liable to be accepted.
12.I have considered the contentions advanced. It is the specific case of the petitioners that after the marriage between their parents, their mother had become a member of the CSI church and had lived all along with her husband's family, far away W.P.(C).No.9929/18 16 from her own home and members of her community. The petitioners were born in Mangkombu and were baptised in the CSI church. They contend that they had been accepted as members of their father's community and documents were produced in support of this contention. Though elaborate findings have been recorded by the Vigilance Officer, KIRTADS in the report, the specific contentions of the petitioners that they had been subjected to the same indignities and difficulties as any other member of the Malai Arayan Committee at the relevant time has been completely omitted to be noticed in the report as well as the order of the Scrutiny committee.
13.The report discloses that the contentions of the petitioners that they had been born and brought up at their paternal home is a fact. However, the report proceeds to state that since the marriage of their parents was an arranged marriage and since the family did not sever all ties with the mother's side of the family, the petitioners cannot claim the status of members of Malai Arayan community. A reading of the findings of the Vigilance Officer, KIRTADS as well as the W.P.(C).No.9929/18 17 impugned orders of the Scrutiny Committee would show that there was no material to establish that the petitioner was continued as members of the Marthoma Community. The essential findings in the report and resultantly the order of the Scrutiny Committee is to be effect that the petitioners did not suffer the indignities faced by the members of the community. However, no material, whatsoever, is available or relied on in support of the said finding either in Exhibit P16 report or in the order of the Scrutiny Committee.
14.This Court in Indira's case (supra) specifically held that in the case of persons born in an inter-caste marriage, what is to be considered is whether the persons who claim such status had been accepted as members of the community by the community itself. It was held that where a person could produce evidence to show that he was subjected to the same disadvantages and handicaps as a member of the community, he would be entitled to claim status as a member of the community. A Division Bench of this Court in Amal Krishnan's case (supra) held that the court must bear in mind that the object of reservation is to remove the hardship, W.P.(C).No.9929/18 18 disadvantages and restrictions suffered by a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and to afford them an opportunity to bring them into the mainstream by providing them facilities of education, employment etc. It was further held that normally lineage for a family member belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe is through the father and some material is required to hold that the claimants had been accepted as members of their mother's community.
15.In the instant case also, I find that the petitioners have prima facie succeeded in establishing that their mother had become a member of the CSI church after their marriage repudiating her status as a member of the Marthoma Church and that the children had been born and brought up as members of their father's community. In the above factual situation, the finding that they were not entitled to the status of members of the tribal community and that they had not suffered the indignities attached to the same required some material. On an anxious consideration of the discussions in Exhibit P16 report as well as Exhibit P19 W.P.(C).No.9929/18 19 order of the Scrutiny Committee, I find that apart from stating generalities, no specific material is relied on in support of the contention that the petitioners had been brought up as members of their mother's community or that they had not suffered the indignities of the tribal status as members of their father's family. Apart from a mention that the petitioners still visited their maternal family home for important religious functions, there is no material supporting the conclusion that they enjoyed the status of their maternal family. As a matter of fact, the mother's repudiation of her forward caste status appears to have been accepted in the report. In the above factual situation, I am of the definite opinion that the finding contained in Exhibits P16 and P19 to the effect that the petitioners are not entitled to claim the status of Malai Arayan is unsupported by any material. The orders, therefore, cannot be sustained.
16.In the result, Exhibits P16, P19 and resultant Government Orders are set aside. The petitioners shall be entitled to W.P.(C).No.9929/18 20 community certificate as members of the Christian Malai Arayan community. Appropriate follow up action shall be taken by the respondents without delay.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj W.P.(C).No.9929/18 21 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 15-09-2015 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO VARGHESE JOHN EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 02- 07-2017 ISSUED BY THE VICAR OF THE CHURCH EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 04-06-2004 ISSUED BY THE BHARANANGANAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 04-06-2004 ISSUED BY THE BHARANANGANAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BAPTISM CERTIFICATE DATED 02-07-2017 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BAPTISM CERTIFICATE DATED 02-07-2017 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 01- 07-2017 ISSUED BY THE CSI CHURCH, PAINTERVALLEY IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 01- 07-2017 ISSUED BY THE CSI CHURCH, PAINTERVALLEY IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER DATED 27-06-2017 PERTAINING TO THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THE ST. PAUL'S LPS, VARAKKAD W.P.(C).No.9929/18 22 EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE EXTRACT OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER DATED 27-06-2017 PERTAINING TO THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THE ST.PAUL'S HIGH SCHOOL, VALIAKUMARAMANGALAM EXHIBIT P6(B) TRUE EXTRACT OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER DATED 27-06-2017 PERTAINING TO THE 2ND PETITIONER IN THE ST. PAULS'S LPS, VARAKKAD EXHIBIT P6(C) TRUE EXTRACT OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER DATED 27-06-2017 PERTAINING TO THE 2ND PETITIONER IN THE ST. PAUL'S HIGH SCHOOL, VALIAKUMARAMANGALAM EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27- 06-2017 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE MOONILAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ANOTHER CERTIFICATE DATED 28-06-2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER'S WARD MEMBER OF MOONNILAVU PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 22- 02-2018 ISSUED BY THE MALA ARAYA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY, MELUKAVU,TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P10(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 22-
02-2018 ISSUED BY MALA ARAYA
SAMARAKSHANA SAMITHY, MELUKAVU TO THE
1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE/TRIBE
CERTIFICATE DATED JUNE,2007 ISSUED BY
THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL, TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL DATED 11-06-2009
W.P.(C).No.9929/18
23
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-01-2010
PASSED BY THE RDO,PALA
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE/TRIBE
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P14(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE/TIBE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18-05-
2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO
9661/2010
EXHIBIT P15(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18-05-
2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO
35895/2010
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 27-04-2017
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 17-05-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-12-2017
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O DATED 20-11-2008
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS DATED
12.06.2018 FOR ADMISSION TO BARODA
MANIPAL SCHOOL OF BANKING.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
17.06.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER FOR ONLINE
EXAMINATION ISSUED TO THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
W.P.(C).No.9929/18
24
EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NOTIFICATION OF SHORT LISTED CANDIDATES.
EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT DATED 20.01.2018 ISSUED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL INTIMATION DATED 24.07.2018 RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PROVISIONALLY SELECTED CANDIDATES DATED 19.09.2018.
EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 12.11.2018 RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 06.09.2018 IN I.A.NO.1/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE DATED 01.12.2018 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.12.2018 SUBMITTED TO NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
EXHIBIT P32 TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER FOR INTERVIEW DATED 28.03.2019 RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 09.05.2019 CONTAINING THE SELECT LIST.
EXHIBIT P34 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION/APPOINTMENT DATED 31.5.2019.
EXHIBIT P35 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 06.09.2018 IN I.A.NO.1/18 IN WP(C) NO.9929/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
True copy PS to Judge