Sheeja P.S vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 5 April, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sheeja P.S vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 5 April, 2022

The final verdict of the Tribunal rendered on 18.2.2022 dismissing O.A. No.385/2021, is under challenge in the present Original Petition (KAT) filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The sole petitioner in the O.P. is the sole applicant in the O.A. and the respondents in the O.P. are the respondents in the O.A.

2. Heard Sri.R.Renjith, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the O.P./applicant in the O.A. and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission appearing for R-1 to R-3. In the nature of the order proposed to be passed by this Court in this O.P., notice to contesting respondent No.4 will stand dispensed with. OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022

..4..

3. The prayers in the instant Ext.P-1 Original Application O.A.No. 385/2021 filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, are as follows:

"

a) Declare that the applicant is entitled to be appointed as LD Typist against the NJD vacancy of Smt.Beena which was advised by the commission on 19-8-2019.

b) Direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the applicant as LD Typist against the NJD vacancy which was advised by the commission on 19-8-2019.

c) Declare that the appointment of the 4 th respondent against the NJD vacancy as stated above is null and void.

d) Issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the abovesaid Ext.P-7 final order on 18.2.2022, dismissing O.A.No. 385/2021, with the finding that the objections raised by the applicant, against the action of the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) in not advising her to the Non Joining Duty (NJD) vacancy, which was reported on 1.10.2019, cannot be interfered with, as the requisition of said NJD vacancy has been received by the PSC after the expiry of the ranked list on 30.8.2019. Further, the Tribunal has also held that the objections raised by the applicant, against the re-advise given by the PSC to OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..5..

the contesting respondent No.4 is not tenable, inasmuch as the action of the PSC in re-advising such a candidate, who is a thrown out candidate, is not amenable for any interference. It is the abovesaid verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P-7, that is under challenge in the instant Original Petition.

5. The applicant has been included in the ranked list for Lower Division Typist [LD Typist] in Category No.388/2014, duly finalized by the PSC on 31.8.2016. The applicant was placed at Rank No.139. The 4th respondent herein was placed at Rank No.48. The ranked list had expired on 30.8.2019, after running its maximum life of 3 years, in terms of Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure [hereinafter referred to as 'The PSC Rules of Procedure'].

6. It appears that R-4 herein, who was having Rank No.48 in the above ranked list, was duly advised and appointed by the PSC, as against a vacancy reported earlier. Later, she was thrown out from the said service, presumably on account of lack of vacancy. She had duly re-registered with the PSC for re-advise of candidate, in terms of Rule 7(b) of Part II of the Kerala State & Subordinate OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..6..

Service Rules, 1958 ['KS & SSR Part II' for short] and the provisions contained in the Kerala Public Service Commission Office Manual.

7. From the pleadings contained in Ext.P-2 reply statement filed by the PSC in the instant O.A. before the Tribunal, more particularly para 4 thereof, it is evident that subsequently, for the period from 2.7.2019 to 6.8.2019, 6 vacancies [5 fresh vacancies + 1 NJD vacancy] were duly reported by the appointing authority concerned to the PSC, in respect of the abovesaid post in question [1 vacancy each on each dates from various departments] . The PSC has stated that 6 candidates available in the abovesaid ranked list were duly advised for appointment, as against those 6 vacancies which were reported from 6 different departments. Among the 6 candidates so advised, one Smt.B.Shehna with Rank No.125, was advised for appointment to the Ground Water Department, and one Smt.S.Beena with Rank No.126, was advised to the Treasury Department.

8. It appears that, Smt.S.Beena was so advised from the present ranked list, as against a Muslim community reservation turn. Further, it also appears that Smt.S.Beena was earlier advised OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..7..

to the post of LD Typist in the Criminal Judicial Department and she had secured appointment. In the light of the advise memo issued by the PSC to Smt.S.Beena, on account of her inclusion in the present ranked list, she was offered appointment order in the Treasury Department, by the appointing authority on 30.8.2019.

9. The ranked list had expired on 30.8.2019.

The appointing authority had later reported an NJD vacancy, in respect of the said Smt.S.Beena, on account of her non joining duty pursuant to the said advise, presumably on account of her earlier appointment. So, the abovesaid NJD vacancy, on account of the non joining duty of Smt.S.Beena, was reported to the PSC only on 1.10.2019, at a time when the ranked list had already expired on 30.8.2019. Hence, the PSC has taken the stand that, if the vacancy concerned, be it fresh or NJD, is reported to the PSC by the appointing authority, after the expiry of ranked list, then there is no question of advising any candidate as against such vacancy, from the time of expiry of the ranked list, in view of the provision contained in Rule 14 of the PSC Rules of Procedure.

10. Two pleas are taken by the applicant in this case. Firstly OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..8..

that, if the PSC had made bonafide enquiries, through the verification system after computerization, it could have been clearly known to them that Smt.S.Beena was already advised and appointed to the very same post of LD Typist in the previous selection, and that she had joined duty, and is duly in service and that, if this information was collected by the PSC, then, they need not have included her in the present ranked list, or at any rate, they could have called upon Smt.S.Beena to give her relinquishment in terms of Rule 18(ii) of the PSC Rules of Procedure, atleast immediately after the finalization of the ranked list on 31.8.2016, in which case, she could have been deleted from the ranked list.

11. In that regard, it is urged by the counsel for the applicant that Smt.S.Beena has now been advised, as against a vacancy, which has arisen in the Muslim community reservation turn. That, Smt.S.Beena is having Rank No.126 in the ranked list, and that the next Muslim Community reservation eligible candidate, in the said ranked list, is the present original applicant having Rank No.139, and further that, if Smt.S.Beena had been OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..9..

deleted from the ranked list, by instructing her to submit her relinquishment claim under Rule 18(ii), then the vacancy which was initially reported on 6.8.2019, could have been utilized for advising the present original applicant for appointment in the Muslim community reservation turn. Further that, since the vacancy was duly reported on 6.8.2019, and the candidate concerned was advised on 19.8.2019, the applicant could have secured the said advise memo on 19.8.2019, and since the vacancy was reported on 6.8.2019, before the expiry of the ranked list, the applicant, indisputably, would have got the right to be advised for appointment to the abovesaid post in question. That, the inaction on the part of the PSC, in not collecting the requisite information about the prior selection and appointment of Smt.S.Beena for the very same post in the previous selection, and the consequential omission on the part of the PSC to instruct Smt.S.Beena to submit her relinquishment of claim under Rule 18(ii) of the PSC Rules of Procedure, have caused serious prejudice and injustice to the applicant. The said contention of the applicant has been overruled and rejected by the Tribunal.

OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022

..10..

12. We will take up the abovesaid first contention of the applicant. The Kerala Public Service Commission is a selection authority who has to discharge duties and functions in terms of Article 320 of the Constitution of India. The PSC Rules of Procedure has been duly framed so that there cannot be any dispute that the selection authority, like the PSC, is obliged to meticulously follow their own rules of procedure. Rule 18(ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure is relevant in this context and the operative portion of the said rule and its proviso, as it stood prior to 7.12.2020, reads as follows:

"Any candidate whose name has been included in a ranked list prepared by the Commission may relinquish his claim for appointment in writing, giving his/her full address and signature, duly attested by a Gazetted Officer of the State/Central Government with signature, name, designation and office seal, on or before the date of receipt of requisition for advice based on which he/she is to be advised. The Commission shall thereupon remove his/her name from the ranked list and advise another candidate according to rules. The candidate whose name has been so removed from the ranked list shall be informed of such removal by the Commission.

Provided that the request for relinquishment received within 15 days after the date of publication of the ranked lists shall also be considered in the cases where there are requisitions of vacancies pending with the Commission before the publication of the Ranked Lists."

13. A reading of the operative portion of Rule 18(ii) would OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..11..

indicate that an option is given to the candidate, who is included in the ranked list, to relinquish his/her claim for appointing in writing, giving his/her full address and signature duly attested by a gazetted officer of the State/Central Government with signature, name, designation and office seal etc, on or before the date of receipt of the requisition for advice based on which he/she is to be advised. Further, the proviso to Rule 18(ii) further mandates that the application for relinquishment shall be submitted along with a notarized affidavit and a self attested copy of an identity proof bearing photograph of the applicant, as enlisted in the general conditions.

14. The present operative portion of Rule 18(ii) has been introduced as an amendment made effective from 29.3.2005. So also, the first proviso to Rule 18(ii) has also been introduced as an amendment made effective from 31.7.2013. The present second proviso to Rule 18(ii) has been introduced by subsequent amendment made effective from 7.12.2020. A reading of operative portion of Rule 18(ii) would indicate that a candidate, whose name has been included in the ranked list prepared by the PSC, may OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..12..

relinquish his/her claim for appointment in writing, giving her full address and signature duly attested by a gazetted officer of the State/Central Government with signature, name, designation and office seal etc, on or before the date of receipt of the requisition for advice, based on which he/she is to be advised. Further that, thereupon the Commission shall remove his/her name from the ranked list and advice another candidate according to the rules. The candidate, so removed from the ranked list, shall be duly informed of such removal by the Commission. So, the effect of Rule 18(ii) is that the claim for relinquishment should be necessarily submitted by the candidate included in the ranked list, on or before the date of receipt of requisition of the vacancy, for which advise turn of the candidate has arisen. The abovesaid condition was introduced to ensure a fair practice of lower ranking candidates prevailing upon higher ranking candidates, who have relinquished their claim for extraneous considerations and to bring in transparency to avoid misuse of the norm. The abovesaid condition has been imposed in the operative portion of Rule 18(ii), and that the application for relinquishment should have been OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..13..

made on or before the date of requisition of the vacancy for which the advise turn of the candidate in question has arisen.

15. However, in some cases, it may happen that, quite a few vacancies may already have been reported, as on the date of finalization of the ranked list, and the turn of the candidate, who may be interested to relinquish, may have arisen as against one of the existing reported vacancies. In such a case, the candidate may not be able to submit his/her relinquishment claim, due to non satisfaction of the condition that the relinquishment claim should be made on or before the date of requisition of the vacancy, for which advise turn of the candidate has arisen. In cases where the vacancy requisition has been received before the finalization of the ranked list, and the advise turn of the candidate would have arisen as against one such pending vacancy requisition report, the same will have some unreasonable consequences. Ordinarily, a candidate can contemplate for relinquishment only after he/she is included in the ranked list. To get over this issue, the first proviso has been introduced, whereby it has been stipulated that the request for relinquishment received within 15 days after the date of OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..14..

publication of ranked list, shall also be considered in cases where there is requisition of vacancies pending with the Commission, before the publication of the ranked list. However, if the turn of the candidate for advise has not arisen, as against one such pending vacancy requisition report, at the time of finalization of the ranked list, the abovesaid benefit of the first proviso, giving liberty to the candidate to make relinquishment within 15 days after coming into force of the ranked list, will not arise. For such candidates, whose advise turn may not have arisen, as against the vacancy requisition reports received at the time of finalization of ranked list, the claim for relinquishment has to be necessarily made on or before the date of receipt of requisition report. So, the insistence that relinquishment should be before the date of receipt of requisition of the vacancy, for which the advise turn of the candidate has arisen, has to be meticulously observed in such cases. As mentioned hereinabove, this has been so insisted to ensure that malpractices and unfair practices to induce higher ranking candidates to relinquish their claims by lower ranking candidates for extraneous considerations is avoided to the extent possible. OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022

..15..

Further, the second proviso to Rule 18(ii), made effective from 7.12.2020, would mandate that the application for relinquishment shall not only be submitted in the necessary form, as made out in Rule 18(ii), but also that it shall be submitted along with a notarized affidavit and a self attested copy of the identify proof bearing photograph of the candidate, who seeks relinquishment.

16. We are told that the said condition, by way of the second proviso, has been so insisted so that, in cases where it is found that the claims made by the candidate in the notarized affidavit is found to be false, appropriate penal action could be taken, in accordance with law. Since the ranked list was only upto 30.8.2019, and as the vacancy claimed for relinquishment was reported on 6.8.2019, the 2nd proviso to Rule 18(ii), made effective from 7.12.2020, has no application in the facts of this case. In the instant case, the ranked list came into force on 31.8.2016. From the pleadings and materials on record, it appears that the turn of advise of Smt.S.Beena, had arisen as against a vacancy reported to the PSC on 6.8.2019. Therefore, obviously, the first proviso/sole proviso will not be applicable in this case. So, necessarily, the said OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..16..

candidate should have submitted the application for relinquishment on or before the date of requisition of the vacancy, for which the advise turn of the said candidate had arisen as per the operative provision of Rule 18(ii). In the instant case, even going by the case projected by the original applicant, Smt.S.Beena had given Anx.3 letter dated 25.9.2019 and that too addressed to the appointing authority concerned (District Treasury Officer), expressing her non inclination to join duty, pursuant to the appointment order offered to her, in terms of the advise memo issued by the PSC. Anx.3 cannot be said to be a relinquishment claim, as envisaged in Rule 18(ii), for reasons more than one. Firstly, Anx.3 is not addressed to the PSC, but to the appointing authority, and that too on 25.9.2019, after the issuance of both the advise memo and the appointment order, and much after the date of requisition of the report of the vacancy, against which her advise turn had arisen. Very crucially, since the said request is not made before the PSC, duly attested by a Gazetted Officer with the necessary seal, etc and not before the date of requisition of the vacancy, against which her advise turn had arisen, viz 6.8.2019, the OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..17..

PSC could not have legally considered the relinquishment of Smt.S.Beena from the ranked list. Unless the candidate gives the relinquishment voluntarily, and that too within the time limit, there is no question of the PSC having any discretion, to instruct or direct the candidate, to make the relinquishment claim. In other words, when the vacancy requisition report was received on 6.8.2019, the PSC cannot be faulted for advising Smt.S.Beena for the vacancy against the Muslim community reservation turn. Hence, the first contention of the applicant has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal, and we do not find any grounds to interfere with the reasoning and findings of the Tribunal.

17. Further, it is to be noted that, as against the vacancy requisition report made on 6.8.2019, the PSC had issued advise memo to Smt.S.Beena, for appointment in the Treasury Department on 19.8.2019. It appears that appointment order was consequently issued to her on 30.8.2019. The non joining duty vacancy, on account of the non joining duty of Smt.S.Beena, was reported by the appointing authority to the PSC only on 1.10.2019. In the mean while, the ranked list had expired on 30.8.2019. OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022

..18..

18. It is by now well established that the PSC will get jurisdiction to advise a candidate included in the ranked list, only as against vacancies reported during the currency of the ranked list. In other words, if the vacancy requisition report is received by the PSC after the expiry of the ranked list, then the PSC does not have any jurisdiction to advise any candidate from any such time expired ranked list. The said restriction is applicable irrespective as to whether the vacancy is either a fresh one or an NJD vacancy. In the instant case, the NJD vacancy has been reported only on 1.10.2019, the PSC cannot be faulted for not advising the present applicant from the abovesaid ranked list, which expired on 30.8.2019.

19. Now, we will take up the second plea of the petitioner. In the instant case, it appears that R-4 herein, Smt.S.Kavitha, was having rank No.48 and she was earlier duly advised from abovesaid ranked list, and given appointment as LD Typist. But, later, she was thrown out from service, presumably on account of lack of vacancy or some other reasons. Hence, such an advised, but thrown out candidate, has the right to seek registration for OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..19..

re-advise with the PSC, in terms of Rule 7(b) of the KS & SSR Part II, and the relevant provisions of the Kerala Public Service Commission Office Manual.

20. Rule 7 of the KS & SSR Part II deal with discharge and re-appointment of the probationers and approved probationers. It is by now well established that a candidate, who is appointed in pursuance of PSC advise memo, who is later thrown out, will have the right to be re-appointed as against vacancies mentioned in Rule 7(b) of the KS & SSR Part II. The relevant provisions contained in the Kerala Public Service Commission Office Manual has also been quoted in Ext.2 reply statement filed by the PSC before the Tribunal. It is stated in the reply statement of the PSC that R-4 herein was re-registered with the Commission on 4.9.2019, and she was re-advised against the vacancy that was reported to the PSC on 1.10.2019.

21. The PSC, in the reply statement, has also referred to Rule 17(a) of the PSC Rules of Procedure as well as the provisions contained in paras 454, 455, 456 & 386 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Office Manual, in regard to the procedure to be OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..20..

adopted for re-advise of such thrown out registered candidates. There is no dispute that R-4 herein was having a higher rank in the ranked list, compared to the present applicant, and she was advised for appointment earlier and that after appointment, she was thrown out from service. Therefore, such a candidate will definitely have the right of re-advise and re-appointment, going by the provisions contained in Rule 7(b) of the KS & SSR Part II and the consequential clauses in the PSC Office Manual, etc.

22. It appears that R-4 herein has been so re-advised, as against the vacancy reported on 1.10.2019. We specifically queried to Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, as to whether R-4 has been re-advised, as against the NJD Muslim turn vacancy, caused due to the non joining of duty by Smt.S.Beena. The learned Standing Counsel for the PSC said that he does not have any precise factual instructions in that regard, and that it could be that R-4 was advised as against the said NJD vacancy, and that, in cases of re-advised/thrown out candidates, the procedure is to accommodate such claims as against any vacancy, irrespective as to whether it is a fresh one or an NJD, and that if it is an NJD OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..21..

vacancy in a community reservation turn, then the said NJD reservation turn will be duly honoured in the next selection process. In any view of the matter, it has to be noted that R-4 has been re-advised as against the vacancy reported on 1.10.2019, and since the ranked list expired on 30.8.2019, there is no question of the applicant having any right to be considered for advise, as against such vacancy reported after the expiry of the ranked list.

23. Yet another contention has also been raised by the counsel for the applicant that R-4 was re-registered for re-advise by the PSC not on 4.9.2019, but on 29.8.2019. The said factual averment raised by the PSC in para 10 of Ext.2 reply statement that, R-4 was re-registered with the PSC on 4.9.2019, has not been rebutted by the applicant in the pleadings submitted by her between 2.7.2019 to 6.8.2019 before the Tribunal. That apart, irrespective as to whether R-4 herein has re-registered with the PSC on 4.9.2019 or 29.8.2019, may not have any material difference in the outcome of this case. This is so, as the abovesaid 6 vacancies have been reported on 6 separate dates between 2.7.2019 to 6.8.2019, and advise memo was also issued to the OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..22..

candidates, including Smt.S.Beena, on 19.8.2019. The NJD vacancy in question has been reported only on 1.10.2019. Therefore, there cannot be any material difference in the outcome of this case, as far as the relief sought for by the applicant in this case is concerned, irrespective as to whether the date of re-registration of R-4 was 4.9.2019, as stated by the PSC, or 29.8.2019, as now is asserted by the original applicant. Hence, there is no necessity for us to ascertain that factual plea now raised by the original applicant.

The upshot of the above discussion is that, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for having arrived at the considered finding that the second plea of the petitioner is also not tenable.

In the light of these aspects, the petition lacks merit and the same will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE MMG OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022 ..23..

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT).NO.97/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT 1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.385 OF 2021 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART DATED NIL ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE 2               TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER
                         NO.E1/2112/2019 DATED 30-8-2019 PASSED
                         BY THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER,
                         PATHANAMTHITTA.

ANNEXURE 3               TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
                         25-9-2019 SUBMITTED BY SMT.BEENA TO
                         THE    DISTRICT    TREASURY   OFFICER,
                         PATHANAMTHITTA

ANNEXURE 4               TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT
                         CHART ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION, WHICH
                         WAS OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE
                         COMMISSION.

ANNEXURE 5               TRUE    PHOTOSTATE    COPY   OF    THE
                         REPRESENTATION     DATED    18-10-2019
                         SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE
                         CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION.

ANNEXURE 6               TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
                         1-2-2020 GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT 2                TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE       REPLY
                         STATEMENT FILED BY THE PSC.

EXHIBIT 3                TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RE-JOINDER
 OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022

                                 ..24..




                         FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 26-7-2021
                         IN RESPONSE THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED
                         BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3.

EXHIBIT 4                TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY
                         STATEMENT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
                         ON 30-1-2022

ANNEXURE R4(A)           TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.PTA II (1)
                         551/15 DATED 19.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE
                         3RD RESPONDENT KPSC.

ANNEXURE R4(B)           TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.A1-
                         610/19 DATED 24.05.2019 OF THE CHIEF
                         JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

ANNEXURE R4(C)           TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE ORDER    NO.A1-
                         1843/2019 DATED 29.08.2019

ANNEXURE R4(D)           TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.PTA II(1)
                         551/15 DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE
                         3RD RESPONDENT KPSC.

ANNEXURE R4(E)           TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E1/168/2020
                         DATED   16.01.2020  OF   THE   DISTRICT
                         TREASURY OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA.

ANNEXURE R4(F)           TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E1/352/21 DATED
                         30.01.2021 OF THE DISTRICT TREASURY
                         OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA.

EXHIBIT 5                TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RE-JOINDER
                         FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 8-2-2022 IN
                         RESPONSE TO THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED
                         BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
 OP(KAT) No. 97 of 2022

                                 ..25..




EXHIBIT 6                TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL
                         RE-JOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON
                         12-2-2022 IN RESPONSE TO THE REPLY
                         STATEMENT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

ANNEXURE 7               TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION
                         SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE
                         PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE PSC
                         OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA ON 30.10.2019.

ANNEXURE 8               TUR PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED
                         BY   THE   STATE   PUBLIC   INFORMATION
                         OFFICER, PSC OFFICE PATHANAMTHITTA.

EXHIBIT 7                CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
                         THE HON'BLE KAT ON 18-2-2022

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court