Shamna P.A vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 5 May, 2022

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Shamna P.A vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 5 May, 2022

Ext.P4 final order dated 10.06.2020, rendered by the Tribunal in the instant O.A. No.1490/2018, is under challenge in the present original petition, filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The sole petitioner in the original petition is the sole applicant in the original application. The respondents herein are the respondents in the original application.

3. The prayers in the instant original petition are as follows:-

"i. Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P4 and quash the same;

ii. Allow Exhibit P1 OA No.1490 of 2019 as prayed for; iii. Allow such other and further reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. Heard Sri.P.Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the O.P./applicant in the O.A., Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 3 learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission, appearing for R1 & R4 in the O.P./R1 & R4 in the O.A. and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for R2 & R3 in the O.P./R2 & R3 in the O.A.

5. The prayers in the instant Ext.P1 original application, O.A. No.1490/2018, filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, are as follows:-

"1. Call for the records leading to the issuance of Annexure A12 order and set aside the same as much as it affects the applicant and direct the respondent to advice the applicant from Annexure A1 ranked list against the vacancies reported as per Annexure A3, since it is reported as per Annexure A2 order of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

2. Any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

3. Award the cost of these proceedings."

6. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P4 verdict on 10.06.2020 in the above O.A., wherein it has been held that no interference is called for on the impugned action of the 1st & 4th respondents in the O.A. in working out of the rotation as against the vacancies reported to the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) in Survey and Land Records Department, covered by Anx.A1 rank list dated 31.12.2012.

7. The petitioner in the original petition will be referred, for convenience, as 'the original applicant/applicant' and the respondent O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 4 Kerala Public Service Commission will be referred, for convenience, as 'the PSC'.

8. A reference to the factual details of the case would be pertinent.

9. The applicant had taken part in the selection process for the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) in the Survey and Land Records Department, notified as category No.113/2008 and after due process of selection, she was duly included in Anx.A1 rank list dated 31.12.2012, for the said post, as rank No.10 in the supplementary list for Muslims.

10. It is common ground that Anx.A1 rank list had remained valid upto 31.12.2016. Further, pursuant to the directions issued by the Tribunal in another case O.A.(Ekm) No.2100/2016, 2 substantive vacancies were reported by the appointing authority as per Anx.A3 letter dated 31.12.2016. There is no dispute that the said vacancy requisition report, as against 2 substantive vacancies, had reached the PSC on 31.12.2016., i.e., before the expiry of Anx.A1 rank list. Later, the PSC had noticed that there was a defect in the said vacancy requisition report inasmuch as the same was not signed by the appointing authority. Hence, the PSC had returned back the said vacancy requisition report, for curing the defect, as per Anx.A4 letter dated 06.01.2017 and the appointing authority had returned the same, O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 5 after curing the defects, by Anx.A5 letter dated 21.01.2017. Later, the PSC had noted that there was yet another defect in the vacancy requisition report inasmuch as the date of occurrence of the 2 substantive vacancies, covered by Anx.A3, was not mentioned therein and there was only description that those vacancies have arisen upto 31.12.2016. Hence, the PSC authorities again instructed the appointing authority to cure the said defect and also to state the precise date of occurrence of the said 2 vacancies which were later cured by Anx.A8 letter dated 19.09.2017, stating that the dates of occurrence of the said 2 vacancies is actually 01.12.2016, etc. It is thereafter that the said 2 vacancies, covered by Anx.A3, was taken up for consideration for advice. During the currency of Anx.A1 rank list, the norms insisted by the Government for filling up the turns to be allotted to physically disabled candidates in the selection process, by way of lateral reservation as per the Central Act, was turn Nos.33, 66 & 99. Later, the Government issued G.O.(P)No.8/17/SWD dated 06.05.2017, stipulating that the earlier turns of allotment of physically disabled candidates in the lateral reservations as turn Nos.33, 66 & 99 will stand altered as turn Nos.1, 34, 67, respectively. In consequence thereto the PSC has issued Anx.A11 circular dated 17.07.2017, holding that the new turns for allotment of physically disabled candidates would be 1, 34 & 67, in lieu O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 6 of the previous turn Nos.33, 66 & 99, respectively. It is the case of the PSC that by the time the advice process was taken up by them, as against the abovesaid 2 vacancies in question, the new norms of the Government as per G.O.(P) No.8/17/SWD dated 06.05.2017, had come into force and therefore, one out of the 2 vacancies had to be set apart for physically disabled candidates and since physically disabled candidates were not available in the special list appended to Anx.A1 rank list, the same has been carried forward for building up in the next selection process, as mandated in the provisions contained in Sec.34(2) of the Central Enactment concerned, viz., Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Further that, the other vacancy had to be utilised for general recruitment and the same came in the turn of Muslim community and since only one vacancy was available for such general recruitment, the community reservation could be effected only subject to 50% ceiling limit, and hence the said turn of Muslim as against the said vacancy had to be passed over temporarily and the said second vacancy had to be allotted to the next eligible candidate in the open category. That, the applicant is included only in the supplementary Muslim list and she could be considered for advice only as against Muslim reservation turns and that, in view of the abovesaid aspects, the eligible Muslim community candidates could not be O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 7 advised to honour the 50% ceiling limit, etc. The Tribunal has accepted the abovesaid contentions of the PSC by holding that since, by the time the advice process was taken by the PSC the new norms of the Government as per G.O.(P) dated 06.05.2017 had come into force and therefore the PSC, as the advising authority, was bound to follow the new turns for all advice processes thereafter and hence, the allotment of the first vacancy to the physically disabled quota is carried forward to the next selection process, due to the lack of eligible physically disabled candidates in the rank list, in view of the mandate contained in the Central Enactment and the temporary pass over of the Muslim turn as against the second vacancy and the consequential allotment of the same to the OC candidates to honour the 50% ceiling limit, etc. cannot be found fault with. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A., as per the impugned verdict rendered in the above O.A. No.1490/2018 on 10.06.2020.

11. One of the main contentions raised by Sri.P.Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the original petition/applicant in the original application is that the abovesaid impugned action of the respondent PSC in considering the new norms issued as per G.O.(P) dated 06.05.2017, for the purpose of advice as against the 2 vacancies in question, is not correct and that the vacancy O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 8 requisition report in that regard was received by the PSC as early as on 31.12.2016, which is within the validity period of the rank list. In that regard it is argued by him that, in view of the mandate contained in Rule 14 of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Rules of Procedure), the PSC is obliged to make advice as against all substantive vacancies reported during the currency of the rank list, that in a case, where the vacancy requisition report has been received during the currency of the rank list, then the procedural norms that should apply for regulating the advice process should be the norm that is in force as on the date of receipt of the vacancy requisition report, provided the vacancy requisition report has been received during the currency of the rank list. But, in a case where the vacancy requisition report is received by the PSC at a time when no rank list is in force, then the procedural norm that may have to govern the advice process would be the norm that is in force at the time when the advice process was taken up. That, this crucial distinction has been lost sight of by the Tribunal and hence, the abovesaid contentions of the PSC are untenable.

12. Per contra, Sri.P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission, appearing for R1 & R4 in the O.P., would urge that the procedural norm that is to be taken into account is the norm that was in force as and when the advice process O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 9 was taken up for consideration by the respondent PSC and not otherwise. Hence, it is argued by him that, since the advice process in the instant case was taken up by the PSC only after coming into force of the new norm issued by the Government Order dated 06.05.2017, the said advice process will be regulated by the new norm and hence, one of the 2 vacancies has to be utilised for physically disabled candidates and consequently the second vacancy which has to be utilised for general recruitment, could not be allotted to the Muslim community to honour the 50% ceiling Rule and hence, the advice process effected by the PSC, in the instant case, is legally correct and tenable. Further, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC would also submit that, if at all the abovesaid contention of the petitioner is to be considered, then the same can be urged only in case where the vacancy requisition report has been received before the expiry of the rank list and it is defect free, as otherwise it cannot be treated as a valid requisition report received during the currency of the rank list.

13. To this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the respondent-PSC themselves have permitted the appointing authority to cure the defects and has accepted the vacancy requisition report on 31.12.2016, and if the vacancy requisition report is treated to have been received only after the defect is cured, then O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 10 there is no question of making any advice at all as against the candidates from Anx.A1 rank list. Further that, since, the admitted case of the respondent-PSC is that the above vacancy requisition report, received on 31.12.2016, has already been considered for advice of candidates from Anx.A1 rank list by permitting curing of defects, then the curing of defects will relate back to the original date of receipt of the vacancy requisition report, viz., 31.12.2016, and so the norm that is in force as on that day alone would govern the field, in which case, to honour the 50% ceiling limit, the first vacancy should have been allotted to the OC candidate and the second vacancy should have been allotted to the Muslim reservation turn candidate. That, since the applicant is the next eligible candidate in the Muslim reservation turn, she should have been advised as against one of the 2 vacancies covered by Anx.A1, which received on 31.12.2016, etc. Certain other contentions have also be urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

14. After hearing both sides, we have passed an interim order in this original petition on 22.10.2021 that one among the 2 vacancies, now set apart for physically disabled candidates, shall not be utilised for advice and the above said order has been extended from time to time.

O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 11

15. One of the main contentions urged by the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC at the time of hearing of this case is by placing reliance on the dictum laid down in the judgment dated 17.12.2020, rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal, W.A. No.1665/2020 (arising out of the impugned judgment dated 13.11.2020 in W.P.(C) No.16667/2018). A reading of the abovesaid judgment would indicate that the rank list in this case, as per Ext.P2 therein, had come into force on 23.01.2018, as in this case, whereas the new norm of the Government as per the Government Order was issued on 06.05.2017 (Ext.P3 therein) and the consequential circular of the PSC was issued on 17.07.2017 (Ext.R2 B therein). The abovesaid Government Order and the PSC Circular mentioned in those judgments are the same as involved in the present case, since the rank list in that case came into force on 23.01.2018, which is much after the coming into force of the Government Order dated 06.05.2017 and the PSC Circular dated 17.07.2017, the advise turns could have been only in accordance with those norms. Therefore, it is in the light of these aspects that this Court has categorically held therein that the new turns for physically disabled candidates in the latter quota will be the one as per the Government Order dated 06.05.2017, for making advice process as against the rank list in that case, which came into force only O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 12 on 23.01.2018. In the instant case, the plea taken up by the applicant is that the instant rank list in this case has expired on 31.12.2016, the vacancy requisition report itself was received on 31.12.2016 and it is contended that curing of defects will relate back to 31.12.2016. Whereas the new norm of the Government was issued as per the Government Orders subsequently on 06.05.2017 and by the PSC Circular issued later on 17.07.2017, etc. So, prima facie, we feel that the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in W.A. No.1665/2020 may not be very relevant and germane for determining the abovesaid contentions urged by the applicant in this case. Due to the reasons to be given by us hereinafter and also taking into account the aspect that the abovesaid precise rival contentions urged by both sides on the abovesaid aspect of the matter have not been duly considered by the Tribunal in the rendering of the impugned verdict, we are of the view that the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh on the abovesaid contention as well as certain other contentions urged by the applicant.

16. Yet another contention urged by the petitioner/applicant is that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in O.P. (KAT) Nos.323, 326, 327, 332, 335, 336, 352, 367, 385, 389 & 407 of 2017 and W.A. Nos.2369, 1757 & 255 of 2017 have relevance in this O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 13 case. That, the challenge made in those cases before the Division Bench was against the selective extension of the rank list and the extension of the rank list, ordered by the PSC, was not made applicable to those rank lists whose validity period had already been extended by virtue of earlier notification, including the rank list as per Anx.A1 herein. That, in the judgment dated 01.03.2018, this Court held that 'all the Original Petitions and the writ appeals are dismissed confirming the conclusions of the learned Single Judge and that of the learned Tribunal, which had followed the learned Single Judge and consequently concurring with the declaration granted in those cases that the rank list involved therein would stand extended until 30.06.2017'. Further that, the PSC had preferred SLP(C) Nos.9111- 9124/2018 before the Apex Court to challenge the abovesaid common judgment dated 01.03.2018, rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in O.P.(KAT) Nos.323/2017 & Connected cases. That, the Apex Court vide final order dated 15.02.2022 has dismissed the abovesaid SLPs filed by the PSC. So, it is pointed out that the validity period of the rank list, as per Anx.A1 herein, is also liable for extension until 30.06.2017 and not merely upto 31.12.2016. Further that, as per Ext.P6 G.O.(MS) No.42/2021/REV dated 31.07.2021, the posts of Draftsman (Gr.II) existing in Survey and Land Records Department O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 14 have been converted as Surveyor (Gr.II) and it has been directed as per the abovesaid Government Order to report those vacancies to the PSC for filling up the vacancies from the existing rank list for the post of Surveyor (Gr.II). Further, it is stated that 110 vacancies of Draftsman (Gr.II) were existing in the Survey and Land Records Department, pending advice and appointment and hence, it is urged that, in the light of the abovesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the above SLPs, confirming the verdict of the Division Bench of this Court in O.P.(KAT) Nos.323/2017 & Connected Cases, the instant Anx.A1 rank list for the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) stood extended upto 30.06.2017 and the abovesaid vacancies of Draftsman (Gr.II) mentioned in Ext.P6 G.O. dated 31.07.2021, which were in existence as on 30.06.2017 should have been reported and utilised for advice of candidates included in Anx.A1 rank list, in which case the petitioner would have secured advice even otherwise.

17. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC would point out that the petitioner has no case that any one of the 110 vacancies of Draftsman (Gr.II), mentioned in Ext.P6 G.O. dated 31.07.2021, has in fact been reported by the appointing authority to the PSC on or before the expiry of Anx.A1 rank list or that it has been reported to the PSC atleast before 30.06.2017. Further that, the fact O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 15 that 110 vacancies are mentioned in Ext.P6 G.O. dated 31.07.2021, would clearly indicate that none of those vacancies have ever been reported to the PSC, at any point of time, or before the aforesaid deadline. Consequently, it was thus urged by the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC that, even if it is assumed for argument sake that the abovesaid contention of the petitioner, based on the judgment in O.P.(KAT) Nos.323/2017 & Connected cases, are to be otherwise considered seriously, there is no necessity to proceed any further in the matter for the simple reason that the petitioner has no case that not even a single vacancy, covered by Ext.P6 has, in fact been reported by the PSC before 30.06.2017.

18. From the pleadings and materials on record we see that, even going by the case of both sides, that the last 3 vacancies reported for the post of Draftsman (Gr.II), during the currency of Anx.A1 rank list made on 31.12.2016, was in relation to the 2 vacancies reported on 31.12.2016. As of now, the petitioner has no case that any further vacancies in the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) has in fact been reported by the appointing authority at least on or before 30.06.2017. So also, the very fact that 110 vacancies of Draftsman are mentioned in Ext.P6 Government Order dated 31.07.2021 itself would make it clear that none of those 110 vacancies in the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) has in fact O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 16 been reported by the appointing authority to the PSC before the abovesaid deadline involved in relation to Anx.A1 rank list. So, prima facie we feel that the abovesaid contention of the petitioner may not have any force in the facts and circumstances of this case unless the petitioner can prove that further vacancies have been reported to the PSC after 31.12.2016 and before 30.06.2017. Only in such a case, the argument made by the petitioner, regarding the alleged effect of the extension of the rank list upto 30.06.2017, can have any bearing.

19. Further, it is contended by the petitioner that the Government has ordered, as per Ext.P6 Government Order dated 31.07.2021, that the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) is to be converted as the post of 'Surveyor-cum-Draftsman' and that in effect the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) will stand abolished and therefore, the setting apart of the abovesaid first vacancy of Draftsman (GR.II), reported on 31.12.2016 to physically disabled candidate, cannot be effectuated for appointment of physically disabled candidates, even in the future, to the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) as the post itself stands abolished. Hence, it is pointed out that no rank list can be prepared by the PSC in the future for the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) and hence, both the carrying forward of the physically disabled candidates vacancy and the temporary passing of the regular Muslim turn, ordered by the PSC for O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 17 the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) cannot be effectuated in future at all. Hence, it is urged by the petitioner that the only reasonable way is to utilise the 2 vacancies reported on 31.12.2016 for general recruitment and one of which can be allotted to the open OC turn candidate and the latter is to be allotted to the Muslim reserved turn, which can only be utilised for advice of the petitioner herein, who is the next eligible Muslim reserved turn candidate.

20. Further, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC has also apprised us that, subsequently, a ranked list for the post of Surveyor was finalised by the PSC and the abovesaid 110 vacancies covered by Ext.P6 Government Order were reported by the appointing authority due to the conversion order granted by the Government and advice process has been completed as against the said 110 vacancies from candidates included in the ranked list for the post of Surveyor. Further that, the said matter has been challenged in an original application, viz., O.A. No.1518/2021 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, which is pending consideration, etc.

21. After hearing both sides, we see that the first contention, as has now been argued by both sides, has not been considered by the Tribunal in the perspective now argued by both sides. Further, the other contention based on the alleged abolition of the post of O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 18 Draftsman (Gr.II) has also not been considered by the Tribunal, presumably as the same may not have been pleaded and argued before the Tribunal. Prima facie, we feel that the further contention regarding extension of rank list may not have any real bearing to grant relief to the applicant unless, it is established that vacancies in the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) has in fact been reported by the appointing authority to the PSC after 31.12.2016 and before 30.06.2017, etc.

22. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the matter may require serious consideration at the hands of the Tribunal on the tenability of the above contentions. We need not enter into the final merits of the controversy at this stage and the matter could be remitted to the Tribunal so that the Tribunal can take a considered decision, after considering the rival pleas of both sides, in that regard. To effectuate such a remedy, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P4 final order dated 10.06.2020, rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, in O.A. No.1490/2018 will stand set aside and consequently the said O.A. will stand remitted to the Tribunal for consideration and decision, afresh.

23. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to amend the pleadings made in the above O.A. to incorporate the abovesaid contentions. The respondent PSC and the respondent O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 19 Government and departmental authorities will be at liberty to file additional reply statements in the matter. The appointing authority and the PSC may also apprise the Tribunal as to the details of the vacancies of Draftsman (Gr.II) reported during the currency of Anx.A1 rank list for the period from 31.12.2012 upto 31.12.2016 and also as to whether any further vacancies in that post have been reported on or after 30.06.2017, etc. So also the respondent State Government may state in their additional reply statement as to whether the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) has been abolished in terms of Ext.P6 G.O. or any other subsequent Government Orders and also as to whether it is proposed to make any future recruitment to the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) or whether future recruitment will be made only in relation to the post of Surveyor and Draftsman (Gr.II), etc. The respondent-PSC may also make it clear in their statement as to how the carried forward vacancies in the physically disabled quota and the TPO vacancy in Muslim turn are to be honoured, in case no future recruitment in the post of Draftsman (Gr.II) is feasible and also as to the tenability of the abovesaid contentions of the petitioner. Both sides may complete their pleadings and additional pleadings before the 2 nd week of June 2022. The Tribunal may take all reasonable endeavours to ensure the early consideration and final disposal of the abovesaid O.A., without much O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 20 delay, preferably within 3 months thereafter or within any reasonable time limit that may be appropriately fixed by the Tribunal, taking into account the interest of administration of justice. We make it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the controversy and in view of the remit those aspects are to be considered by the Tribunal independently and in accordance with law.

24. Further, to protect the subject matter of the lis, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that the interim order passed in this O.P., not to utilise the abovesaid one vacancy in question for advice, etc. will continue to be in force until the final disposal of the O.A. by the Tribunal.

With these observations and directions, the above original petition will stand finally disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE Skk//31032022 O.P.(KAT) No.289/2021 21 APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 289/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.1490 OF 2019 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.727/12/ER II, DATED 31.12.2012 FOR THE POST OF DRAFTSMAN GR.II IN SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS DEPARTMENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN O.A. NO.2100 OF 2016, DATED 23.12.2016.

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3-9617/2016, DATED 31.12.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH PROFORMA.

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KLR III(1) 165/2010, DATED 06.01.2017 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3-27153/2016, DATED 21.01.2017 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KLR III(1)165/2010, DATED 07.02.2017 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO GR.III A(1) 51482/2007/GW, DATED 21.06.2017 FROM THE 1T RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A3-9617/2016, DATED 19.09.2017 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KLR III(1) 165/2010, DATED 03.10.2017 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GR VII (1) 51452/2007/GW, DATED 30.10.2017 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 5/2017, DATED 17.07.2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE FILE NOTES IN THIS REGARD IN FILE NO.KLR III(1)/165/2010 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST AND 4TH RESPONDENTS IN OA NO.1490 OF 2018.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT P2 IN OA NO.1490 OF 2018.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ADMINISTRATION TRIBUNAL IN OA NO.1490 OF 2018 DATED 10.06.2020.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.16/2014 DATED 11.06.2014 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.42/2021/REV ON 31.07.2021.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-        NIL

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court