Kerala High Court
Shyni C.B vs Chitra Bhanu.M.K on 23 July, 2020
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2020 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.294 OF 2014(Z)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 946/2014 DATED 30-07-2014 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
SHYNI C.B
"SURABHI",PLOT NO.29, CHEMPAKA HOUSING COLONY,
B.C.ROAD, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 015
BY ADV. SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS
RESPONDENT:
1 CHITRA BHANU.M.K.,
NATTIANCHIRA HOUSE, KANIYHARCODE PO,
THIRUVLWAMALA,THRISSUR 680 594
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
4 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
JAGATHY PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN SR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN
SRI. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR-SR.G.P.R2 TO 4
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 30-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).71/2015(Z), THE COURT ON
23-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 &
71/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2020 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.71 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.2.2015 IN RA 4/2015 IN OA 946/2014 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
1 AMUL ROY
S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PRIMARY DEPARTMENT TEACHER,
GUPS CHALAI, CHALAI.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT T.C-17/1107(3), CG 118 MADHURAM,
CHERUKARA GARDENS, POOJAPURA.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.
2 VALSA D.S
D/O.ARTHUR JOSEPH J, PRIMARY DEPARTMENT TEACHER,
GGHS, CHALAI, CHALAI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT TC.11/1917(5) NBRA.106, NETHAJI BOSE
ROAD, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.
BY ADV. SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 CHITRABHANU.M.K
NATTIANCHIRA HOUSE, KANIYARCODE.P.O.,
THIRUVILWAMALA, TRISSUR-680 594.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3
O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 &
71/2015
3 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
JAGATHY.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN SR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN
R2-4 BY T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR-SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 30-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).294/2014(Z), THE COURT
ON 23-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 &
71/2015
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2020 Shaffique, J O.P.(KAT) No.294/2014 has been filed against the order dated 30.7.2014 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) in O.A.No.946/2014. Two other persons who were not parties to the case filed Review Application No.4/2015 against the order dated 30.7.2014, which came to be dismissed as per order dated 11.2.2015. OP(KAT) No.71/15 is filed against the order in Review Application.
2. The short facts of the case are as under:
The original application was filed by the 1 st respondent herein, as applicant, seeking for a declaration that Rule 5 of Annexure A2 Special Rules to the extent it does not prescribe Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA) certificates issued by the State Board of Technical Education as one of the qualifications for appointment to the post of HSST (Computer Application and Computer Science), as unconstitutional and for other consequential reliefs. The subject matter in issue had arisen in the matter relating to appointment of Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) in Computer Application. Applicant was working as HSA Mathematics during the relevant time. As per the Special Rules, one among the qualifications 5 O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 & 71/2015 prescribed for being appointed as HSST (Computer Science) is Master's Degree with not less than 50% marks in Mathematics/Physics and Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA) from a recognized University, or Institute of Human Resources Development or Lal Bahadur Sastri Centre for Science and Technology (for short LBS Centre) or Department of Electronics, "A" level Accredited.
3. The applicant was having M.Sc. Degree in Mathematics with more than 50% of marks. He obtained PGDCA from Government Polytechnic, Palakkad. His contention is that, when LBS Centre for Science and Technology is included among the institutions which issues PGDCA, there is no reason to exclude PGDCA course conducted by the Government Polytechnic. According to him, LBS Centre does not issue any certificate to the candidates directly. It is the State Board of Technical Education who awards the Diploma Certificate to the candidates who had successfully completed the course at the LBS Centre. The curriculum and the course of study of PGDCA course in the LBS Centre and Government Polytechnic are the same and therefore, the Special Rules which does not include PGDCA course of Government Polytechnic as a qualification is bad for under inclusiveness and thereby violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that, when a seniority list was published on 30.9.2008, his name was included at Sl.No.13368 with Rank No.24. One teacher Sri.V.T. Thomas filed O.A.No.1340/2013 before the Tribunal challenging the said seniority list and the Government was directed to 6 O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 & 71/2015 reconsider the same after hearing all the affected parties. The Government thereafter issued an order dated 7.3.2014 deleting the name of several persons included in the earlier seniority list, which includes the applicant as well, for the reason that his PGDCA was from an institution which was not recognized as per Special Rules.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the matter observed that when it is clear that the curriculum of the course conducted by LBS Centre and Government Polytechnic for PGDCA is one and the same and the examination is conducted by the very same agency, i.e., the State Board of Technical Education, there is no reason to exclude PGDCA course of the applicant in the Special Rules as a qualification for appointment to the post of HSST. It is therefore found that when the qualification suffers from the vice of under inclusiveness, it amounts to violation of equality clauses under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kamala Devi v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (2002 (1) KLT 157). Accordingly, the original application was allowed. The qualification acquired by the applicant was directed to be treated as relevant qualification for the purpose of promotion and the seniority list was directed to be revised accordingly.
5. OP(KAT) No.294/2014 is filed by Smt. Shyni C.B, who was affected by the aforesaid order and got impleaded before the Tribunal itself. Two other candidates who were not parties before the Tribunal filed Review Application inter alia contending that they have PGDCA from the LBS Centre 7 O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 & 71/2015 for Science and Technology and other relevant qualifications and by including a person who was not qualified in terms of the Rules, their right to get promoted as HSST has been substantially affected. The Review Application has been dismissed by order dated 11.2.2015, inter alia observing that there is no error apparent on the face of record.
6. The short question to be considered in the above case is whether the Rule which prescribed the qualification to the post of HSST (Computer Science and Computer Application) can be extended to PGDCA course conducted by the Government Polytechnic.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
8. It is not in dispute that a prescription of qualification for a particular post is within the domain of the employer, which in this case is the State. The scope of judicial review to interfere with the qualification criteria is very limited. The Court cannot sit in judgment while exercising the power of judicial review and ascertain whether a particular eligibility criteria is equivalent to another eligibility criteria specified by a candidate. Such matters are to be left to the employer alone. The Tribunal had placed reliance on Kamala Devi's case (supra). That was a case in which the issue involved was whether a junior can draw a higher pay than a senior and whether the same would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is in that background, the Division Bench placed reliance on the principle of under inclusiveness as laid down by the Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Sri. Ambica Mills, Ahmedabad [AIR 1974 SC 1300]. The 8 O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 & 71/2015 factual aspects involved in Kamala Devi's case (supra) was totally different and the Division Bench found that it is a clear case of discrimination as the junior was drawing higher salary than the senior without any reasonable cause and therefore she is entitled for stepping up of her pay to that extent. Though the principle of under inclusiveness is highlighted in the said judgment, the facts involved was totally different and could not have been placed reliance on, in the facts of the present case and for that reason, the said judgment has no application to the case on hand.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and Another [AIR 1986 SC 1448]. Paragraph 7 is relevant which reads as under:
"7. But it was then contended on behalf of the appellants as a last alternative that the action of the Karnataka University in not recognising the Higher Secondary Examination held by the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan and in any event the first year BSc examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore was arbitrary and unreasonable. We cannot accede to this contention. It is difficult to appreciate how the Higher Secondary Examination held by the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan after only 11 years' schooling could be regarded as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore which came as the culmination of a full 12 years' course of study. So also it is difficult to understand how the decision of the Karnataka University not to recognise the first year BSc examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore could be regarded as arbitrary or fanciful. It is 9 O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 & 71/2015 for each University to decide the question of equivalence and it would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any expertise. The University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the Court should not disturb the decision taken by the University. Here we find that no material has been placed before the Court on the basis of which the Court could say that the decision of the Karnataka University not to recognise the Higher Secondary Examination of the State of Rajasthan or the first year BSc examination of the Universities of Rajasthan and Udaipur as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore was arbitrary or not based on reasons. We must therefore reject this contention urged on behalf of the appellants".
10. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and Others v. Lata Arjun [(2002) 6 SCC 252]. Paragraph 13 is relevant which reads as under:
13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.
11. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the question regarding the vires of qualification prescribed for HSST in Sonia Alex v. State of Kerala (2017 (4) KLT 774) . Paragraph 19 is relevant 10 O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 & 71/2015 which reads as under:
"19. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, etc., fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. The administrative authorities are in the best position to decide the requisite qualifications for appointment, promotion, etc., and it is not for the Court to sit over their decision like a Court of Appeal. The administrative authorities have experience in administration, and the Court must respect this, and should not interfere readily with administrative decisions. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides."
12. In Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office Kochi & Others v. Aarya K. Babu & Other [2019 (8) SCC 587], at paragraph 12, it is held as under:
"12. xxx xxx We are of such opinion in view of the well-established position that it is not for the Court to read into or assume and thereby include certain qualifications which have not been included in the notification by the employer. Further the rules as referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents is pointed out to be a rule for promotion of officers. That apart, even if the qualification prescribed in the advertisement was contrary to the qualification provided under the recruitment rules, it would have been open for the candidate concerned to challenge the notification alleging denial of opportunity. On the other hand, having taken note of the specific qualification prescribed in the notification it would not be open for a candidate to assume that the qualification possessed by such candidate is equivalent and thereby seek consideration for appointment nor will it even be 11 O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 & 71/2015 open for the employer to change the requirements midstream during the ongoing selection process or accept any qualification other than the one notified since it would amount to denial of opportunity to those who possess the qualification but had not applied as it was not notified".
13. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others [(2019) 2 SCC 404], at paragraphs 26 and 27 it was held thus:
"26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 :
(2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] . The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine.
The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower 12 O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 & 71/2015 qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10- 2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench.
27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision-making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 :
(2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned.
14. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the curriculum in respect of the course conducted by the LBS Centre and Government 13 O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 & 71/2015 Polytechnic is the same and the certificates are issued by the Director of Technical Education even for the candidates who have undertaken the course at LBS Centre. On a reading of the respective curriculum, it appears to be the same. Each institution has its own merits and demerits. If the Government had consciously decided not to include the PGDCA course conducted by the Government Polytechnic as sufficient qualification, there has to be a sound reason for the same. When a conscious decision had been taken by the Government to exclude certain PGDCA courses as an eligibility criteria, the Court cannot step into the shoes of the employer and take a contrary view. The PGDCA courses might be conducted by several institutions in private sector and Government sector. When the Government has consciously decided not to include the course conducted by Government Polytechnic, it is not for this Court or for the Tribunal to interfere with the said policy decision which has to be left to the authorities itself. As laid down by the Apex Court in a long line of judgments, of which some are extracted above, equivalency of a particular course is not a matter to be decided by the Court or Tribunal.
In the result, we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. We set aside the order in O.A. No. 946/2014 and RA No.4/2015 by allowing the aforesaid original petitions. The OP (KAT)s are allowed. The Government shall take necessary steps to revise the seniority list in accordance with the aforesaid view expressed by us and it shall be re- casted and the petitioners, if they are still in service, may be given the post 14 O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 & 71/2015 of HSST, if they are qualified and any person who does not acquire the qualification shall be reverted. However, it is made clear that there shall not be any recovery of any amount that has already been paid on account of the appointment of the applicant as HSST.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
kp True copy JUDGE
P.A. To Judge
15
O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 &
71/2015
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 294/2014
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION
NO.946 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BY THE IST
RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE-1 TRUE COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE DATED
10.04.2002 ISSUED BY THE STATE BOARD OF
TECHNICAL EDUCATION
ANNEXURE-2 TRUE COPY OF SPECIAL RULES PROMULGATED BY
THE GOVERNMENT BY G.O. DATED 16/04/2001
ANNEXURE-3 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 24.04.2014
SENT BY THE SENIOR JOINT DIRECTOR OF
TECHNICAL EDUCATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE-4 TRUE COPY OF THE GO DATED 3.04.1999
SANCTIONING PGDCA COURSE AT THE
POLYTECHNICS
ANNEXURE-5 TRUE COPY OF THE SUBJECT WISE SENIORITY
LIST OF QUALIFIED HSA'S AS ON 30.09.2008
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTION TO THE POST OF
HSST
ANNEXURE-6 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.1233/2014/ G EDN
DATED 07/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS
APPLICATION NO.1236/2014 IN OA NO.946/2014
FOR IMPLEADING DATED 29/5/2014
EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3 COPOY OF ORDER DATED 30/7/2014
PASSED BY THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OA
NO.946/2014
EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF PGDCA 5932/2012
16
O.P(KAT).Nos.294/2014 &
71/2015
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 71/2015
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE P1 P1- TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL
APPLICATION NO.946 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE DATED 10/04/2002 ISSUED BY THE STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF SPECIAL RULES PROMULGATED BY THE GOVERNMENT BY GO DATED 16/04/2001.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 24/04/2014 SENT BY THE SENIOR JOINT DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCTION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE GO DATED 03/04/1999 SANCTIONING PGDCA COURSE AT THE POLYTECHNICS.
ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE SUBJECT WISE SENIORITY LIST OF QUALIFIED HSA'S AS ON 30/09/2008 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTION TO THE POST OF HSST.
ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.1233/2014/G EDN.
DATED 07/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.07.2014 PASSED
BY THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OA 946/2014
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW
APPLICATION NO.4/2015.
ANNEXURE RA1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30/07/2014 PASSED
BY THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM IN OA NO.946/2014.
ANNEXURE RA2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30/07/2014 PASSED
BY THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OA NO.946/2014.
EXHIBIT P4 P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2015
IN RA NO.4/2015 IN OA NO.946/2014.