Kerala High Court
Anil Kumar V.G vs The Union Of India on 10 February, 2026
W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 1
2026:KER:14656
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TH
TUESDAY, THE 10 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18353 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:
1 ANIL KUMAR V.G,AGED 56 YEARS
STAFF NO.6023, ASSISTANT FOREMAN (ME),
SE (M) IC DIVISION,
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
COCHIN PORT TRUST,
WELLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.
2 NALINAKSHAN B.N., (DIED)
STAFF NO.6024, ASSISTANT FOREMAN (ME),
SE (M) IC DIVISION,
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
COCHIN PORT TRUST, WELLINGDON ISLAND,
COCHIN-682009.
BY ADVS. SHRI.VINAY KUMAR VARMA
SHRI.N.K.KARNIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, PARIVAHAN BHAVAN, 1,
PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001.
2 COCHIN PORT TRUST,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
WELLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.
3 CHAIRMAN,
COCHIN PORT TRUST, WELLINGDON ISLAND,
COCHIN-682009.
4 THE CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER,
CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST,
WELLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.
6 BABU M.K., STAFF NO.9359,
FOREMAN (ME), SE (M) IC DIVISION,
W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 2
2026:KER:14656
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
COCHIN PORT TRUST, WELLINGDON ISLAND,
COCHIN-682009.
7 C.K.UDAYAKUMAR,
STAFF NO.9522, FOREMAN (ME),
SE (M) IC DIVISION,
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
COCHIN PORT TRUST, WELLINGDON ISLAND,
COCHIN-682009.
8 D.K.VIMALKUMAR V.G,
STAFF NO.9762 FOREMAN (ME),
SE (M) IC DIVISION,
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
COCHIN PORT TRUST, WELLINGDON ISLAND,
COCHIN-682009.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
R2 TO R5 BY ADVS. SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
R6 TO R8 BY ADVS.SHRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN
SHRI.P.M.BINOY KRISHNA
SHRI.T.C.KRISHNA, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
SHRI.SUVIN R.MENON, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. L SUNDARESAN,ASGI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.11.2025, THE COURT ON 10.02.2026 THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 3
2026:KER:14656
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020
.................................................................
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs.
"A Call for the records leading up to Exhibit P10. B. Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P6.
C. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent organization to restore the original seniority in respect of the petitioners in the post of Asst Foreman from the date of their promotion to the said post in tune with the 'catch up' rule laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K.Pavitra I, and thereafter consider their candidature also for promotion to the post of Foreman within a time limit to be laid down by this Hon'ble Court.
D. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The 2nd petitioner died during the pendency of this proceeding, and a memo has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners intimating that they are not intending to implead the legal W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 4 2026:KER:14656 heirs of the 2nd petitioner and therefore, this Court will be considering the claim of the 1st petitioner alone and he will be referred to as the 'petitioner' in this writ petition.
3. Essential contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner joined service as a Lascar much prior to respondents 6 to 8. It is submitted that respondents 6 and 8 belong to the Scheduled Tribe category, and the 7th respondent belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. Respondents 6 to 8 earned an accelerated 1st promotion to the next promotion post of Greaser and subsequent intervening post on the basis of reservation, thereby gaining seniority over the petitioner.
The consequential seniority gained by respondents 6 to 8 was reckoned for the grant of promotion to the post of Assistant. Foreman and later respondents 6 and 8 were promoted to the post of Foreman. Petitioner contends that the issue regarding reservation for promotion, etc., was considered by the Apex Court in several judgments, and on the basis of the same, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the decisions by the Apex Court and other High Courts in the matter of reservation, and contended as follows:-
"1. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in General Manager, Southern Railway v Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36 held reservation in promotion can be provided under Art 16(4) as W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 5 2026:KER:14656 exception to Art 16(1). The same view was endorsed in C.A. Rajendran v Union of India & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 507.
2. Indra Sawhney & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 altered this vew and held:
●Reservation is not applicable for promotions. ●Reservation is applicable only for initial appointments.
●Quantum of reservation not to exceed 50% in any year.
●Creamy layer to be excluded.
The Central Government was, however, given 5 years in which to amend rules.
3. In 1995 parliament adopted 77th amendment by inserting Art 16 (4A), enabling it to provide for reservation in promotions.
4. In R.K.Sabharwal & Ors. v State of Punjab & Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 745, it was held:
●Reservations to be worked out on Cadre Strength (i.e. total No. of posts in a cadre).
●Roster to be inoperative after one round of appointments is completed.
5. Union of India & Ors. v Virpal Singh Chauhan & Ors., 1995 (6) SCC 684 laid down the 'Catch Up' Rule whereby:
●Seniors from general category would regain seniority on being promoted in normal turn after the junior who was promoted earlier on Roster point.
●'Catch Up' rule would be applicable only if both senior and junior are in the same post at the same time.
●Seniority will always be Panel Seniority.
6. S. Vinod Kumar Vs. Union India, 1996 (6) SCC 580 (since overruled) held that relaxation in qualifying marks and W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 6 2026:KER:14656 standards of evaluation in matters of reservation in promotion were not permissible.
7. Ajit Singh Januja & Ors. v State of Punjab & Ors., 1996 (2) SCC 715 (Ajit Singh I) adopted the "Catch Up' rule laid down in Virpal Singh.
8. To implement directions in R.K.Sabharwal, Virpal Singh Chauhan and Ajit Singh 1, the Central Government issued 2 Office Memoranda (OMs) in OM No. 20011/1/96-Estt.(D) dated 30.01.1997 and OM No. 1997 36012/2/96-Estt. (Res).
9. In Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, 1997(6) SCC 538 held that Roster point promotees were entitled to consequential seniority by virtue of their continuous officiation in the higher post.
10. Ajit Singh Januja & Ors. v State of Punjab & Ors., 1999 (7) SCC 209 (Ajit Singh II), the Apex Court held that Jagdish Lal was not correctly decided and held that Virpal Singh Chauhan and Ajit Singh 1 laid down the correct law - Catch Up' rule restored.
11. Following Virpal Singh, S. Vinod Kumar and Ajit Singh II, Parliament in the years 2000 and 2001 enacted following amendments:
●81st Amendment (2000) whereby Clause (4B) was incorporated in Article 16 of the Constitution, laying down that backlog reserved vacancies would be outside the 50% ceiling for reservation.
●82nd Amendment (2000) whereby a proviso was inserted in Article 335 of the Constitution enabling relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation for reservation in promotion.
●85th Amendment (2001) whereby the words 'with W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 7 2026:KER:14656 consequential seniority' was inserted in clause (4A) in Art 16 of the Constitution.
12. After these amendments, DOPT issued the OM of 2002 - OM No. 20011/1/2001-Estt.(D) dated 21.01.2002 superseding the OMs of 1997 and enabling roster point promotees count their consequential seniority.
13. Validity of 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Amendments challenged in M. Nagraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2006 (8 SCC)
212. A Constitution bench upheld the amendments as being constitutionally valid, but held the State was not bound to provide reservation in promotions as Art 16 (4) was only an enabling provision and if the State still decided to grant reservation in promotions, it had to collect quantifiable data on the following:
●Backwardness of the class.
●Extent of representation of reserved category in service.
●Effect of providing such reservation on administrative efficiency.
14. S.Panneer Selvam & Ors. v Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2015 (10) SCC 292 held that unless the service rules had a specific provision for consequential seniority, 'Catch Up' rule would prevail.
15. B.K.Pavitra & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., 2017 (4) SCC 620 (B.K.Pavitra I) held though Karnataka determination of seniority of the Government servants promoted on the basis of reservation (to the posts in the civil services of the State) Act, 2002 had a provision for consequential seniority, in the absence of quantifiable data as directed in Nagraj, 'Catch Up' rule would prevail. The Act was set aside.
16. Jarnail Singh & Ors. v Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors., W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 8 2026:KER:14656 2018 (10) SCC 396 held Nagraj was correctly decided and did not require reconsideration by a larger bench of 7 judges.
However, directions in Nagraj to collect quantifiable data on backwardness held contrary to directions in Indira Sawhney and set aside.
17. Karnataka re-promulgated Act of 2002 after collecting quantifiable data. B.K.Pavitra & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., 2019 (16) SCC 129 (B.K.Pavitra II) upheld the Act holding deficiency noted in BK Pavitra I was cured and it was Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant.
18. Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure v Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende & Ors., 2020 (11) SCC 399 held seniority list could not be challenged without challenge to rule providing consequential seniority.
19. Mukesh Kumar & Anr.v The State of Uttarakhand & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1226 of 2020 held Government is not bound to provide reservation in promotions to SCs and STs. No fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions. Collection of quantifiable data with respect to inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs a sine quo non for providing reservation in promotions.
20. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though 1" respondent has a rule granting consequential seniority in the form of the OM of 2002, the said OM does not require to be challenged as it will not be applicable in the case of the petitioners for the following reasons.
21. In Mumbai Port Trust Non SC/ST Employees Association & Ors. v The Board of Trustees of Mumbai Port Trust & Ors., 2017 1 AIR (Bom) (R) 560 the Hon'ble Bombay High Court read down the OM of 2002. Though the respondents in the case approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court no interim W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 9 2026:KER:14656 relief was granted and the respondents implemented the directions by carrying out reversions.
22. It is submitted that in light of order No. A-38011/1/2000-PE-I dated 20.09.2019 of the 1" respondent, OM of 2002 is not applicable to the employees of the 2nd respondent Cochin Port Trust. OM of 2002 has not been adopted by the Board of the 2nd respondent and published in the official Gazette so far.
23. Therefore, as on date no provision exists in the service rules of the 2nd respondent providing consequential seniority in promotions and therefore the question of a challenge to such provision or rule does not arise.
24. It is further submitted that since the 2nd respondent has failed to collect quantifiable date in respect of representation of backward classes in service and the effect on administrative efficiency before issuing Exhibit P6, it will be the 'Catch Up' rule which will be applicable."
On the basis of the same, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation on 26.05.2020. Disregarding the said representation by Ext P6 order dated 28.05.2020, the 8th respondent was promoted as Foreman. Later, Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P7. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the post of Foreman has been filled up by candidates whose first promotion from the entry level post of Lascar was accelerated on account of reservation, thereby being senior to the petitioner. The said consequential inter se seniority was maintained by them on the basis of subsequent accelerated promotions to the intervening post in the hierarchy till they W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 10 2026:KER:14656 got promotion as Foreman, which resulted in shutting out the opportunity for the petitioner for promotion to the post of Foreman, though the petitioner is senior, taking into consideration the date of entry into service.
4. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents 6 to 8, mainly contending that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The earlier promotions granted to the respondents is not under challenge and they got further promotion based on the seniority and eligibility in their respective feeder category posts and the said promotions were granted based on their seniority and not on the basis of reservation and further that the said promotions were never challenged by the petitioner at any point of time and therefore the petitioner is estopped from challenging their seniority.
5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 to 5, wherein it is stated that Cochin Port Trust falls under the aegis of the Ministry of Shipping and is bound to implement the Government Orders issued from time to time, and promotions were granted based on Exts.R2(a) to R2(c). They also contend that the writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and non-joinder of necessary parties, the promotions granted to respondents 6 to 8 are in strict compliance with the Government Orders and therefore not liable to W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 11 2026:KER:14656 be interfered with.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the said contentions by filing a detailed reply affidavit.
7. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides.
8. Before going to the applicability of the various decisions of the Apex Court and the High Courts relied on by the petitioner on the facts of this case, this Court is to consider the contention raised by the respondents that the writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and that the earlier promotions based on which respondents 6 to 8 were promoted to the post of Foreman are not under challenge. Admittedly, the petitioner has already retired from service.
Even as per the averment in the writ petition, the party respondents were promoted to higher posts in the hierarchy much before the petitioner was promoted. But the earlier promotions granted to the party respondents are not challenged by the petitioner at any stage. The challenge now raised is only regarding Ext.P6, wherein the 8 th respondent was promoted to the post of Foreman. The promotion granted to respondents 6 and 7 to the post of Foreman is also not under challenge in this writ petition. Though a claim was raised by the petitioner as per Ext.P5 representation, seeking promotion to the post of Foreman with retrospective effect, the same was rejected by Ext.P7 W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 12 2026:KER:14656 order, which is also not challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.
9. It is a settled position of law that a claim for seniority is to be put forth within a reasonable period of time. The Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Kaul and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2012 (7) SCC 610, while considering the claim of promotion on the ground that juniors have been promoted, taking note of the aspect of delay in challenging the same, held in paragraph 22 as follows:
"22. As far as appellant No. 4 is concerned, we really see no justifiable reason on his part to join the other appellants when he had acceded to the first judgment passed in his favour to a limited extent by the tribunal. This was an ambitious effort but it is to be borne in mind that all ambitions are neither praiseworthy nor have the sanction of law. Be that as it may, they approached the tribunal some time only in 2004. The only justification given for the delay was that they had been making representations and when the said benefit was declined by communication dated 31.7.2004, they moved the tribunal. The learned senior counsel for the appellants fairly stated that as the doctrine of parity gets attracted, they may only be conferred the benefit of seniority so that their promotions are not affected."
The Apex Court in A.J Fernandis v. Divisional Manager, South Central Railway and Others, (2001) 1 SCC 240, held in paragraph 14 as follows:
"14 Even otherwise, it is to be noted that the appellant got W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 13 2026:KER:14656 promoted to the post of Ticket Collector on 28-5-1983. He was thereafter promoted as a Senior Ticket Collector on 25- 9-1986. The appellant was then promoted as a Train Ticket Examiner on 25-5-1987. The 3rd respondent chose to challenge the promotion of the appellant as a Ticket Collector only on 11-12-1987, i.e., after a period of 4 years. On the ground of delay and laches also the application of the 3rd respondent should have been dismissed. "
The Apex Court in Balram Prasad Shukla v. State of M.P and Others, (2005) SCC OnLine MP 328, held in paragraph 7 as follows:
"It be seen that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Accountant on ad-hoc basis on 28-2-1980 but the promotion was subject to the approval of the DPC as it is clear on bare perusal of Annexure-I dated 28-2-1980. Thus, the confirmation of the petitioner to the post of Accountant would be only after the approval of the DPC. The DPC was convened in the year 1981 and the petitioner was not found fit as a result of which vide order dated 7-7-1981 the department passed impugned order Annexure-H reverting the petitioner to his original post of first grade clerk. It be seen that the promotion which took place on 7- 7-1981 was never challenged by the petitioner for near about nine years and by this petition which was filed on 12-2-1990 the petitioner is seeking promotion w.e.f. 7-7-1981. In the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152:AIR 1974 SC 2271 the Apex Court upheld the decision of Madras High Court dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner on the ground of laches in regard to promotion which was sought after 14 years. In that case the Supreme Court held that if a person is aggrieved by an order of promotion, promoting a junior over his head he should W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 14 2026:KER:14656 approach the Court atleast within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in a later decision in the case of A.J. Fernandis v. Divisional Manager, South Central Railway, (2001) 1 SCC 240 in which the Apex Court held that the promotion of another employee cannot be changed after a period of four long years. Since the petitioner is challenging the order of promotion after near about nine years, the view of this Court is that on the basis of the decision of P.S. Sadasivaswamy and A.J. Fernandis (supra), the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. "
A Full Bench of this Court in Pavithran V.K.M. and another v. State of Kerala and others, 2009 (4) KHC 4 has considered this question and decided in paragraph 9 as follows:
"Whenever an adverse order is passed against a person, unless the same is challenged before the appropriate forum, within the prescribed time limit, the said order will become final and the person, affected by it, will also be bound by it. It is a well settled principle in Administrative Law that, there are no void orders in absolute sense in administrative matters. There are only voidable orders. Unless a person aggrieved takes recourse to the appropriate remedy at the appropriate time, even an illegal order will be treated as valid and binding. See the observations of Wade in Administrative Law, 6th Edn.
"The truth of the matter is that the court will invalidate an order only if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances. The order may be hypothetically a nullity, but the court may refuse to quash it because of the plaintiff's lack of standing, W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 15 2026:KER:14656 because he does not deserve a discretionary remedy, because he has waived his rights, or for some other legal reason. In any such case the 'void' order remains effective and is, in reality, valid. It follows that an order may be void for one purpose and valid for another, and that it may be void against one person but valid against another. A common case where an order, however void, becomes valid is where a statutory time limit expires after which its validity cannot be questioned. The statute does not say that the void order shall be valid; but by cutting off legal remedies it produces that result."
The above statement of law has been quoted with approval by the Apex Court in several decisions, and one of them is State of Punjab v. Gurdeb Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1). We notice that Exts.P2 and P3 orders were passed by competent statutory authorities. They could have granted the reliefs sought by the sixth respondent, but, they have declined to do that. The sixth respondent has not chosen to challenge those orders before the higher forum or this Court and as mentioned earlier, he allowed them to become final. Therefore, those orders are to be treated as valid. They cannot be ignored or treated as void ab initio and therefore, of no effect now. It is a well settled principle in service jurisprudence that, a person who enjoyed a seniority position for quite some time is entitled to sit back. The seniority position shall not, normally, be disturbed lightly. The said position is covered by several decisions of this Court and also the Apex Court, cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not in the interest of administration or public interest to allow a person, who slept over his right, to rake up a stale claim, tinker with the seniority list and demoralise other members of the service. We find no reason not to apply the above principle applicable to members of public W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 16 2026:KER:14656 service, to the persons working in aided schools governed by the K.E.R., also. There cannot be any separate principle for such schools concerning seniority, sit back, etc.. In view of the above position, we are of the view that Ext.R6(a) judgment does not lay down the correct legal position. We overrule the said decision. We uphold the view taken by the Division Bench in Usha Devi's case (supra), as laying down the correct legal position. "
10. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and the declaration of law as stated above, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered in as much as the earlier promotions granted to the party respondents, on the strength of which they were promoted to the higher post of Foreman, not being challenged by the petitioner, the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches in as much as any interference by this Court will be unsettling the seniority enjoyed by the party respondents at this distance of time. Further, the challenge made by the petitioner against the promotion granted to the party respondents and claiming retrospective promotion was repelled by the Port Trust by Ext.P7 order, which is not challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. Moreover, the promotion granted to party respondent No.8 alone is under challenge in this writ petition, and the promotion granted to respondents 6 and 7 is not seen challenged.
In the light of the above, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner since there is serious delay and laches on the part of the W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 17 2026:KER:14656 petitioner in challenging the earlier promotion granted to respondents 6 to 8, based on which further promotions were granted to them and when Ext.P7 order whereby the claim of the petitioner for retrospective promotion was rejected by the Port Trust is also not challenged in this writ petition. Further, it is to be seen that the promotions granted to the party respondents were in strict compliance with the directions in Exts.R2(a) to R2(c) orders issued by the Ministry of Shipping.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE cks W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 18 2026:KER:14656 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 18353 OF 2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST AS ON 31.12.2007 IN RESPECT OF THE MECHANICAL DIVISION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST AS ON 19.08.2019 IN RESPECT OF THE MECHANICAL DIVISION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A6/PROMOTION/ASST.FOREMAN(ME).2017-M DATED 30.11.2017 IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A6/PROMOTION/ASST.FOREMAN(ME)/2018-M DATED 04.04.2018 IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26.05.2020 SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A6/PROMOTION/ASST.FOREMAN(ME)/2020-M DATED 28.05.2020 IN RESPECT OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER
NO.A4/REPRESENTATION/VGA/2020-M DATED
14.07.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ROSTER
REGISTER DATED 16.07.2020 FOR CHARGEMAN (ME) IN 2ND RESPONDENT ORGANIZATION.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ROSTER
REGISTER DATED 16.07.2020 FOR
ASST.FOREMAN(ME) IN 2ND RESPONDENT
ORGANIZATION.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ROSTER
REGISTER DATED 16.07.2020 FOR FOREMAN
(ME) IN 2ND RESPONDENT ORGANIZATION.
EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF DOP & T OM NO.20011/1/96-
ESTT.(D) DATED 30.01.1997
EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF DOP & T OM NO.20011/1/2001-
ESTT.(D) DATED 21.01.2002
EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF RTI QUERY
NO.MPTRS/R/E/20/00046 DATED 07.12.2020 EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.GAD/P/GEE/RTI/CASE NO.40/3795 DATED 19.12.2020 OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 1987 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER I.C. W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2020 19 2026:KER:14656 ENGINES OF THE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF THE MOBILE EQUIPMENT SECTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR THE YEAR 2002 Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING LETTER NO. A-
38011/1/2000-PE-I DATED 20.09.2019.
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF COCHIN PORT TRUST EMPLOYEES (RECRUITMENT, SENIORITY AND PROMOTION) REGULATIONS 2010.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.36012/2/2007-ESTT.
(RES.) DATED 29.03.2007 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVT. OF INDIA EXT.R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.36036/2/96-ESTT.
(RES.) DATED 02.07.1997 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVT. OF INDIA EXT.R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE OMNO.36012/45/2005-ESTT.
(RES.) DATED 10.08.2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVT. OF INDIA Exhibit R2(d) True copy of DoPT OM No.36012/16/2019- Estt.(Res.) dated 12.04.2022 Exhibit R2(e) True copy letter No.A2/Reservation in Promotion/2022-S dated 12.04.2023 issued by CoPA to Ministry for clarification from DoPT Exhibit R2(f) True copy of Guidelines issued by the respondents vide Note No.A/Promotion/2022/S dated 01.03.2023 Exhibit R2(g) True copy of DoPT Note No.36028/1/2022- Estt.(Res-I) dated 14.02.2024 Exhibit R2(h) True copy of DoPT OM No.20011/1/2001- Estt.(D) dated 21.01.2002