Kerala High Court
Dr.Neethu.M vs State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2022
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
W.P(C).27064/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 27064 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
DR.NEETHU.M, AGED 30 YEARS
W/O.M.KIRANLAL, MANI BHAVAN, 12-MURI NAGAR 124,
THATTAMALA P.O., KOLLAM-691020, PRESENTLY WORKING
AS ASSISTANT MANAGER (AH), REGIONAL SEMEN BANK,
CHALAKUDY, KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD
LTD.
BY ADVS.
SAMEER M NAIR
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, GOKULAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (BT),
KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LTD.,
MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA.
BY ADV SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.SUMATHI DANDAPANI(SR.) FOR R2 AND R3 ,SR.GP REKHA .S
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.02.2022, THE COURT ON 04.03.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).27064/2020
2
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner completed her M.V.Sc degree from the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University in the year 2017 and was thereafter appointed as the Assistant Manager at the Regional Semen Bank, Kannur of the Kerala Livestock Development Board Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), by Ext.P1 appointment order dated 19.05.2018. At the time of joining, she was directed to execute an agreement with the Board undertaking to serve the Board for a minimum period of 5 years from the date of joining duty and in the event of resignation or discontinuing from service, at any time within a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of service, she shall pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages to the Board. She claims that, she executed the bond since the first job in her life was dear to her. In the meanwhile, she had cleared the examination for appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon, Grade-II, conducted by the PSC. She was issued with Ext.P3 order from the Animal Husbandry Department of Government of Kerala, appointing her to the post of Veterinary Surgeon. She submitted Ext.P4 representation requesting the Board to relieve her to enable her to join the Animal Husbandry Department. Board took the stand that, she will be relieved only on payment of the bond amount. Claiming that the enforcement of bond was highly unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of rights of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and that, she was not W.P(C).27064/2020 3 imparted with any training at the time of joining the Board, she has approached this Court with this Writ Petition. She relied on Ext.P5 O.M. issued by the Central Government dated 29.07.2004, by which, an employee who leaves the government undertaking should be permitted to continue the bond period with the new undertaking, in which the employee joins. She also placed reliance on the decision reported in Hemant Tyagi v. Uco Bank [W.P(C).No.8500/2016] to contend that, she was not liable to pay the bond amount. The prayer in the writ petition was to declare that, Ext.P2 was bad in law and to quash it, and to direct the Board to issue relieving order to the petitioner. She also sought a declaration that the amount covered by Ext.P2 was exorbitant and disproportionate to the expenses incurred by the Board in training the petitioner.
2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a detailed common counter affidavit contending that the writ petition was not maintainable. It was contended that the primary objective of the Board was to provide for developmental activities in the field of cattle breeding, production and supply of frozen semen, procurement and supply of liquid nitrogen, supply of A inputs, fodder development, training to farmers-officials etc. The Board was also functioning as an implementing agency of various Central-State Government schemes in the state, in relation to cattle's development. The Board has the best advanced technology for frozen semen facility in India. For continuing the supply of frozen semen (required for artificial insemination in cattle) in the state, the Board has W.P(C).27064/2020 4 to maintain A grade for its semen stations awarded by the Central Monitoring Unit (CMU), a professional body under Government of India. The core functions of the Board are being carried out by the professionals of both Animal Husbandry and Agricultural wings in the Board. The primary challenge is against Ext.P2 bond executed between the petitioner and the second respondent, which is not vitiated by any fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence by the second respondent and consequentially, writ petition is not legally sustainable.
3. It was stated that the employees of the Board has Special Staff Rules and Regulations approved by the Government of Kerala in the year 1994. As per the Staff Rules and Regulations, all technical officers of the Board has to execute a bond or a contract of service with such terms and conditions as the Managing Director/Board of Directors thinks fit, at the time of appointment. As per the conditions stipulated in the appointment order, it was prescribed that the petitioner will have to execute a bond for the value mentioned for a period of 5 years. Petitioner was conscious about it. This was prescribed in the notification also.
4. As per the Special Rules existing in the Board, the post of Assistant Manger (AH) is outside the purview of Kerala Public Service Commission. The contention of the petitioner that, no formal training was imparted to the petitioner by the Board at the time of joining was not true. She was given a week training after joining, which was sufficient for discharging her duties. Board is an institution which is W.P(C).27064/2020 5 involved in highly scientific activities and continuance of experienced professionals in the Animal Husbandry wing is highly essential. The Board has the most advanced and sophisticated equipments in the country, in the field of frozen semen and Hi-tech farms. Unlike many other departments, technical officers working in the Board are gaining skill experience through "learning by doing" and the experience gained in Board is an added factor in the petitioner's career.
5. All the technical employees who are recruited to the Board require specific knowledge in the field and should have acquired experience to maintain international standards. The conduct of frequent recruitment against the vacancies of Assistant Managers (AH) by availing the services of Government Agencies like Centre for Management Development (CMD) has resulted in huge financial burden to the Board. The Board itself is functioning with the grant allocated by the State as well as the Central Government in each financial year. The Board is not a profit generating company and to maintain a cadre of experienced professionals, Board was forced to insist on bonded obligation for all newly recruited employees in the post of Assistant Manager to execute an agreement to serve the Board for a minimum period of 5 years or remit Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest in lieu of liquidated damages.
6. Though many officials in the post of Assistant Managers have quit the services of the Board before completing the minimum period of service by duly remitting the liquidated damages as W.P(C).27064/2020 6 prescribed in the agreement, few litigations were also initiated by such officers before various judicial forums challenging the demand for liquidated damages. The Courts have consistently rejected such claims. Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner cannot be accepted by the Board without fulfilling the bonded obligation and all other connected formalities. The petitioner had voluntarily and consciously entered into Ext.P2 agreement by accepting Ext.P1 appointment order and after the acceptance of the appointment, she has stepped into Special Rules governing the affairs of the Board employees. She cannot now turn around against Ext.P2 agreement and resign from the Board without fulfilling the obligation. The allegation that the clause in the agreement was contrary to Sec.27 of the Indian Contract Act is not correct. Petitioner, cannot, after entering into an agreement consciously approbate and reprobate by taking the benefit of the contract and deny the terms of the contract. The clause is not in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
7. Her service in the Board could not be reckoned to her service in the Animal Husbandry Department of Government of kerala and respondent being a public company cannot permit the petitioner to continue the remaining bond period in Animal Husbandry department, as it is a Kerala Government post. Further, petitioner is working in the Board, drawing a scale of pay of an Assistant Director of the Animal Husbandry department, which is of an administrative nature also. She cannot avail the benefit of Ext.P5 personnel policies of the Central W.P(C).27064/2020 7 Government which is applicable only to Central Government employees with specific conditions.
8. In answer to the above counter affidavit, a reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner contending that, all the technical staffs of the Board are not bound to execute a contract of service or a bond. The Livestock Inspectors/Assistants recruited by the Board through the PSC are also technical staffs but they are not required to execute a bond as in the case of the petitioner.
9. Petitioner executed the bond after joining the Board and she was not informed about the bond amount before accepting the job. The claim that, petitioner was given training by the Board by the process of 'learning by doing' was not correct. The duties of the Board require proper training to the officers at the time of joining itself, which was not provided. The duties are mainly of administrative and managerial character and includes, quality analysis of semen dispatched to the field artificial insemination centers. The contention that, all the technical employees recruited in the Board require specific knowledge in the field, is not ensured by the Board by giving a proper pre-induction training. Only the Livestock Assistants are given proper technical training. All the candidates who had applied for selection, pursuant to the notification of the Board, has remitted an exam fee of Rs.1000/-, which is sufficient enough to meet the expenses associated with the selection process. Liquidated damages can be claimed in the event of damages and the concept of employment bond is to protect the interest W.P(C).27064/2020 8 of the employer in the event of loss. The bond amount, especially the exorbitant bond amount, imposed by the respondent Board is unfair, is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and contrary to the principles of equity.
10. On a premise that new facts were disclosed in the reply affidavit, an additional affidavit was filed by the Board along with few documents. It was claimed that, the core functions of the Board which was a pioneer institution in the country having vast experience in the field of frozen semen technology and allied subjects, were mainly associated with Animal Husbandry and Agricultural wings of the Board. The entry category post of professionals in the Animal Husbandry wing was that of Assistant Manager (AH), whereas, Veterinary officers appointed in the Board was required to render their services mainly in the farm units of the Board, located at difficult terrains. In order to attract young talents and to ensure their continuity of service in the Board, it had been offering salary and allowances to the veterinary and agriculture professionals much higher than in the Animal Husbandry and Agriculture Departments. The entry level scale of pay to Veterinarians in the Board was equivalent to the post of Assistant Director in the Animal Husbandry and Agriculture Department of the State Government.
11. Considering the specialized fields wherein the Board had been engaged, continuity of experienced professionals in the field was highly essential. To ensure that, A-grade certification from CMU under W.P(C).27064/2020 9 Government of India was to be continuously sustained, Board has insisted for bonded obligations to serve the dearth of Veterinary officers in the Board, which has affected the technical functions adversely. The Veterinary officers recruited in the Board as Assistant Managers (AH) would need to associate with the procurement and up-keeping of Frozen Semen Production, storage and dispatch in accordance with the minimum standard protocol designed by the Central Monitoring Unit under Government of India. The technical expertise and knowledge gained by the Board in the field of Frozen Semen Technology and allied subjects are the result of its decade's long research and development in the field. The management and the Board of Directors of KLD Board had noticed that, fresh Veterinary Graduates appointed in the board used to make the institution as a breathing space to them, till they get appointment in Government departments. To tide over the situation and by considering the above facts, the board of Directors decided to enhance the amount of liquidated damages consequent to their failure to render a minimum, period of 5 years service in the Board. The amount fixed by the Board was not based on monetary value of the amount spend on the training to the employees nor the expenditure of administrative expenses on the recruitment processes, rather than loss of technical expertise which was highly essential to maintain the standards of CMU under the Minimum standard protocol of the Government of India. The brain drain caused by the frequent resignations of Assistant Managers would drastically affect the smooth W.P(C).27064/2020 10 functioning of the Board. Hence, the bonded obligation was created by invoking the provision stipulated under Regulation 28(5) of the Kerala Livestock Development Board, Staff Rules and Regulations 1994. At the time of accepting the offer, petitioner was aware that, she had already been included in the rank list for the post of Veterinary Surgeon Gr.II as ranked 138 as per the notification with effect from 14.12.2017. For the recruitment process, huge financial expenditure was also incurred on account of advertisement in national/regional dailies. The recruitments to staff category posts were conducted through PSC. The Livestock Inspectors (Gr.II)/Supervisors in the Board were para supporting staff intended to support the technical officers for maintenance and upkeep of animals in the farms, the record keeping and allied matters. The qualification prescribed for Livestock Inspector was a pass in Vocational Higher Secondary Education in Livestock Management and the candidates appointed to the post through PSC would have to complete Stockman Training course/L1 Training course conducted by the various authorities for regularizing their provisional service. Hence, it is not a training programme but it is a course work examination as the part of the Special Rules governing their service. The Board had insisted bonded obligation only to the managerial cadre employees (Assistant Managers and above), recruited directly by the Board. No employees other than the Assistant Managers and above recruited in the Board by direct recruitment in accordance with the Government approved Special Rules were insisted to execute any W.P(C).27064/2020 11 agreement in connection with their appointment in the Board. The nature of the job of Livestock Inspectors was only supervisory level and Assistant Managers were managerial level.
12. Board had provided an elaborate training programme to the petitioner in the field of semen process and production from 6 th to 10th May 2019. Thereafter, she was again deputed to the training in sustainable ulitization of Indigenous Animal Genetic Resources in Animal Husbandry conducted by ICAR at Karnal, one of the pioneer Institute of Animal Genetics in the country. The loss occurred to the Board on account of employee turnover in the cadre of Assistant Manager is not only a financial loss, but against the interest of the Board to maintain a team of young talents required to put forth its scientific proficiency and excellence beneficial to the country and to ensure continuity.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the Board. Examined the records.
14. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on several Judicial Precedents contended that writ petition was not maintainable, I am not inclined to go into the question of maintainability of the writ petition, since the question of maintainability was not advanced in the course of hearing by the learned Senior Counsel for respondents who mainly contested on merits.
15. The petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Manager (AH) in the Board by Ext.P1 proceeding dated 19.05.2018. The above W.P(C).27064/2020 12 proceeding indicates that along with appointment order, the terms and conditions of the appointment were appended and it was provided that, it will form part of the appointment order. Admittedly, Ext.P1(3) is the terms and conditions of appointment issued along with appointment. Clause (6) provide that, petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs undertaking that, he will serve the Board for a minimum period of 5 years and in case of failure, and if she wishes to leave the Board before the expiry of the bond period, liquidated damages as specified in 6th para above will be realized by the Board. It was subsequent to that, the bond was executed on 02.07.2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had no other option than to accept the employment or to starve, by not executing the bond and thus the petitioner was coerced to accept an unconscionable contract of employment between the two unequals. It was further contended that the contract was not fair and also based on undue influence. However, Ext.P1(3) clearly show that even along with appointment order, she was informed about her obligation to execute the bond. It is true that the bond was executed after she joined the service. However, at that point of time, she was bound to execute the bond document, she accepted the agreement and thereby she executed document. It is to be noted that, petitioner is not an ordinary job seeker, but a highly qualified person who at that point of time stood in the rank list of the Government service also. Though a feeble contention was taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at W.P(C).27064/2020 13 that point of time, petitioner never expected to get the job in Government since she stood very low in the rank. However, the petitioner, a highly qualified person, who had applied for several jobs and stood in two ranks simultaneously at same time, cannot be considered as a person who by the force of circumstance had to execute the bond. The circumstance indicate that, she had executed the document with open eyes voluntarily and consciously. She cannot now turn round and contend that, she is not bound by the terms of the agreement.
16. Though the learned senior counsel further contended that the petitioner is not entitled to approbate and reprobate by accepting the agreement and denying the terms of the agreement and wriggle out of the responsibility based on Ext.P2, the learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the above contention relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Babu Kesavan and Another v. Prakasan [2017 KHC 1040] where the Division Bench had held that, under the civil law, the Doctrine of election applies when the elector has a choice of two rights, either of which he is at liberty to exercise but not both. To buttress this argument, learned counsel further relied on the decision of this Court in Sugathan M.P. v. Union of India and Another [2014(2) KHC 763]. In that decision, the learned Single Judge, considering the concept of equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution held that a public authority or instrumentality of the State is expected to act in accordance with public interest, public good W.P(C).27064/2020 14 fairly and justly. The Court can interfere if their action is unfair, unjust, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 as held in Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India v. Devi Ispat Ltd. And Ors. [2010(11) SCC 186]
17. I am not attracted by the above contention in the light of the fact that the petitioner cannot be considered as an ordinary job seeker. As mentioned earlier, petitioner is a highly qualified person who stood qualified for selection in two rank lists for atleast two posts. Hence, it cannot be said that, there was an unconscionable bargain or that, she by her conscience, had no effective choice to accept the employment with the conditions incorporated therein.
18. To assail the claim based on the bond executed by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Ext.P5 circular issued by Union Government [DPE O.M.No. 15(2)2003- DPE(GM)/GL-57 dated 29.07.2004]. That office memorandum related to the enforcement/transfer of bond in respect of employees of Public Enterprises who leave the services of one Undertaking to join another Undertaking/Government. The O.M. provided that, employees of public enterprises who have received scientific/technical training at the cost of public enterprises and have applied through proper channel during the currency of the bond join Central Government/State Government services or take up employment under the quasi-government organizations or any other public enterprise, either on the basis of competition examinations/interviews organized by those organizations W.P(C).27064/2020 15 or the Union Public Service Commission, should not be enforced subject to the condition that a fresh bond is taken to ensure that the employee serves the new employer for the balance of the original bond period. Relying on this O.M., learned counsel contended that, in the light of above, petitioner can very well be permitted to continue the bond with her new employment. To buttress that contention, learned counsel invited my attention to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Hemant Tyagi v. Uco Bank and Others.[supra]. It was a case wherein an identical situation arose. The petitioner therein who was employed by the Ministry of Rural Development during the bond period had sought for transfer to the State Bank of India without completion of the bond period. Relying on Ext.P5 office memorandum, the Delhi High Court held that, the petitioner is entitled for repayment of the bond amount collected from the employee and his bond period can be continued under the new employer.
19. Ext.P5, OM further directed that, all the administrative ministries/departments are to issue necessary instructions as above to the public sector enterprise under their administrative control. OM applies to public sector undertakings and the Government departments/ministries only. Consequently, OM applies only in case of employees of such institution. Further it would also depend on the public sector undertaking issuing necessary instructions in accordance with Ext.P5. It is clear that, neither the respondent is a pubic sector enterprise as contemplated under the above OM nor OM is seen W.P(C).27064/2020 16 accepted by the Board. In the additional counter affidavit, it has been specifically stated that, Ext.P5 is not applicable to the petitioner. It applies only in case of bond applicable in public sector undertaking enterprises owned and controlled by the Central Government. It was stated that, as far as the Board was concerned, no such instruction has been issued by any Ministry and the Government has also not entertained such relief.
20. The counter affidavit shows that, several other Assistant Managers who had earlier resigned from the service of the Board had paid the liquidated damages of Rs.5 lakhs. The names of 8 such persons who resigned during the period June 2019 to February 2021 have been disclosed. It was also stated that, one Assistant Manager Smt.Salini K.V. had submitted representation before the Government to permit to relieve from service waiving the remittance of liquidated damages by citing the decision of Ext.P5. The above representation was considered by the Board of Directors of the Board in their 213 th meeting held on 15.10.2019 as agenda NO.14/213 and the Board ultimately concluded that the representation submitted by Salini cannot be accepted. The Board had also intimated the matter to the Government, which declined to accept the representation of the employee. Evidently, all the precedents show that, neither Board has accepted any claim for exemption on any ground nor acknowledged Ext.P5 OM. The stand of the Board seems to have been endorsed by the Government. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for W.P(C).27064/2020 17 the petitioner in Hemant Tyagi's case (supra), there was a clear finding in paragraph 8 that, the employer therein did not dispute the applicability of Ext.P5 instructions. Hence, neither Ext.P5 would apply to the facts of this case nor Hemant Tyagi's case applicable to the petitioner.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner further advanced an argument that, even accepting that a bond was legitimately executed and the bond was applicable to the petitioner, the liability to fix Rs.5 lakhs was against public policy and that, it cannot be considered as liquidated damages unless the respondent establish that, Rs.5 lakh was the actual expense incurred by the Board. Unless it is so established, the lumpsum amount of Rs.5 lakhs cannot be forfeited in its entirety, it was contended.
22. It is pertinent to note that, according to the Board, the prescription of executing the bond has been insisted upon by invoking Regulation 28(5) of the Kerala Livestock Development Board (Staff Rules and Regulations) dated 23.11.1994. It was contended that, by virtue of accepting the employment, the petitioner herself had accepted her obligation to be governed by the above Regulations. Though the petitioner has specifically challenged Ext.P2 bond on various grounds, Regulation 28(5) has not been challenged. In the above circumstance, the question that narrows down as to whether the Board is entitled to insist for forfeiture of the bond of Rs.5 lakhs. The specific contention of the Board in answer to the claim was two fold. Firstly, that bond was W.P(C).27064/2020 18 insisted upon considering the nature of activities carried on by the Board. According to the Board, it is a premier institution which involved in highly scientific activities and continuous expertise of experienced professionals in the Animal Husbandry was considered as essential for the pioneer institution of pivotal role, by the CMU (Central Monitoring Unit). It was also stated that, Board was maintaining 3 semen stations in the state having A grade certification from CMU, considering the specialized fields wherein the Board had been engaged, continuity of experienced professionals in the field was highly essential. Referring to the nature of employment of Assistant Managers and their peculiar field of activity, it was stated that, the Veterinary officers recruited in the Board as Assistant Managers (AH) would need to associate with the procurement, up-keeping etc of Frozen Semen Production, storage and despatch in accordance with the minimum standard protocol designed by the CMU. The technical expertise and knowledge gained by the Board in the field of Frozen Semen Technology and allied subjects were the result of the decade old research and development in the field. The pivotal role and insistane for quality by the Board seems to be not in serious dispute. It is also significant to note that the functions of the Assistant Manager substantially differs from all others corresponding post. Necessarily, they require expertise of higher grade. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that, by the process of learning, Assistant Managers acquire great knowledge and play significant part in the running of the W.P(C).27064/2020 19 premium institution. That being so, the detailed narration of the precise qualifications and expertise required by the AHS shows that, any premature resignation by an employee before the completion of 5 year period and before their valuable knowledge and experience are fully tapped and will substantially affect the institution. It was also contended that, the bond amount was not fixed by the Board on the monetary value of the amount spend on training of the employees or the expenditure of administrative expenses on the recruitment processes but the value of the loss of technical expertise which was highly essential to maintain the standards of CMU under the Minimum Standard Protocol.
23. In the above circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, Rs.5 lakhs prescribed in the bond cannot be considered as the unliquidated damages and the damages, if any, to the institution can only be that required for conducting a fresh examination and such administrative expenses incurred can be met from the money received from each candidate at the time of submitting the application, has to be rejected.
24. Having considered this, I find that, there is absolutely no basis for the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above amount cannot be considered as the liquidated damages. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently relied on the decisions reported in Ledella Ravi Chander & Others v. Sathyam Computer Services Ltd. [Manu/AP/0416/2011], Vijayakumar W.P(C).27064/2020 20 Anugandala & Others v. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. [MANU/PE/4178/2018] and ABL International Ltd. And Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Others [(2004)3 SCC 553] to butress the above propositions, in the light of the factual conclusions referred to earlier, the decisions have no relevance.
25. Having considered the entire facts, I find no ground for the relief to the petitioner, either by holding that, Ext.P2 bond is not applicable to the petitioner or that, even Ext.P2 bond is sustainable, the amount mentioned therein is unconscionable and she is liable for a lesser amount. Necessarily, the writ petition has to fail.
In the result, writ petition fails and is dismissed. Second respondent will be free to encash the bank guarantee furnished.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE Sbna/ W.P(C).27064/2020 21 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27064/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 19.5.2018 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BOND DATED 2.7.2018 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 25.11.2020 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.12.2020 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE OM DATED 29.7.2004.S EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)N0.8500/2016 EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.ADVT.NO.PM-V/3819/2016 CALLING FOR VACANCIES AGAINST ASSISTANT MANAGER (AH) AND ASSISTANT MANAGER (FODDER DEVELOPMENT/PRODUCTION) IN KLD BOARD EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF TEH JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.26095 OF 2009 DTD 27.07.2016 FILED BY ONE MR.DR.AJO JOSEPH AND 4 OTHERS