Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs P.V.Priya on 28 June, 2021
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1943
OP(KAT) NO. 74 OF 2021
AGAINST THE FINAL ORDER IN O.A.(EKM) NO.1307/2017 OF
THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KANNUR-670 001, KERALA
SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, GOVT.PLEADER
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A.:
P.V.PRIYA, D/O. PRABHAKARAN, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT
(PHYSICAL EDUCATION), GOVERNMENT VOCATIONAL HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL (SPORTS),KANNUR-670 001,RESIDING AT
KARAPPATHU HOUSE,P.O.VENGARA,KANNUR,KERALA-670 305.
ADV. SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD
THIS OP(KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 28.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021
..2..
(C.R.)
ALEXANDER THOMAS & A.BADHARUDEEN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021
[arising out of the impugned final order dated 27.11.2018
in O.A. (Ekm) No.1307/17 on the file of the KAT, Ernakulam
Bench]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2021
JUDGMENT
The prayer in the afore captioned original petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows {See page No.12 of the paper book of this O.P.} :
".........set aside Exhibit P5 Order dated 27.11.2018 in OA(E) 1307/2017 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam by allowing this Original Petition."
2. Heard Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners herein (respondents in the O.A.) and Sri.T.T.Muhamood, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein/original applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal.
3. The prayers in the instant Ext.P-1 O.A. (Ekm) O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..3..
No.1307/2017 filed before the KAT, Ernakulam, are as follows {See page No.26 of the paper book of this O.P.}:
"
i. Call for the records relating to Annexure A12 and set aside the originals of the same.
ii. Issue a direction to the respondents to retain the applicant as HSA (physical education) in the scale of Rs.8390-13270. (pre-revised) iii. Issue direction to the respondents to release the salary of the applicant in the scale of pay of HSA at the earliest. iv. Pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case."
4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has ultimately held that the reconsidered decision taken by the Government after the remit as per impugned Anx.A-12 G.O.(Rt) No.3974/2017/G.Edn. dated 22.06.2017, to the extent it orders that the original applicant is entitled for appointment only as Physical Education Teacher in High School Section in the scale of pay of Rs.6680-10780 instead of the scale of pay for the post of HSA of Rs.8390-13270 does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness, but that the consequential directions therein to the extent its orders that the original applicant should refund the entire excess amount paid on account of the earlier mistaken O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..4..
appointment, will be indeed unfair and inequitable and that such recovery of excess amounts was held to be illegal. The petitioners herein (State Government and the departmental officials concerned) are not in any manner challenging the conclusive findings of the Tribunal to the extent it has upheld Anx.A-12 G.O.(Rt) No.3974/2017/G.Edn. dated 22.06.2017, whereby it has been held that the applicant is entitled only for appointment in the lower scale of pay as Physical Education Teacher, but they are aggrieved by Ext.P5 final order of the Tribunal to the extent it has interdicted with steps proposed by them for recovery of the excess amount paid to the applicant.
5. The applicant is a sports person who was eligible to be considered for appointment in the Sports Quota in government services. She possesses the qualification of B.A. (Malayalam), MPED (Master of Physical Education), M.Phil. in Physical Education, National Institute of Sports (NIS) Diploma in Sports Coaching in Football and AFC (Ascian Football Confederation) A License. Pursuant to selection notification published in Gazette O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..5..
dated 06.09.2010 inviting applications for appointment to State service from outstanding sports persons, the applicant had applied for the post of Assistant, LDC and HSA in the above order of preference. After due process of selection, she was indeed selected and appointed as HSA as per Anx.A5 G.O.(MS) No.134/2012/GAD dated 02.06.2012. The applicant was appointed against the supernumerary posts created for appointment of 45 candidates for the year 2009 and as per the above order, she was appointed to the post of HSA (Physical Education) in the scale of pay of Rs.8390-13270. Initially the appointing authority concerned (Deputy Director of Education, Kannur) had issued consequential proceedings at Anx.A6 dated 23.05.2013 appointing her to the post of Physical Education Teacher (High School), in the abovesaid scale of pay of Rs.8390-13270 at Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kannur, and she had joined duty on 3.6.2013 and she was later regularised in service as per Anx.A7 order dated 19.8.2015.
6. From the pleadings and materials on record and from O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..6..
the submissions of the parties, it appears that there is no post of HSA (Physical Education) in the High School sections of Government schools though, there are posts of HSA in various subjects like languages and in the core subjects like social sciences, sciences, etc. The scale of pay of HSA at the relevant time is Rs.8390-13270. For imparting education in the subject of physical education to students studying both in the High School section and in the Primary Section, there are posts of Physical Education Teacher (PET) in the High School section as well as post of PET in the primary section. The posts of PET both in the High School section as well as in the primary section, would fall within the lower scale of pay of Rs.6680-10780. In other words, even for a Physical Education Teacher, who is appointed to teach physical education subjects to High School section students, the scale of pay is only Rs.6680-10780 and not the higher scale of pay of Rs.8390-13270, which is applicable only for the post of High School Assistant (HSA). This mistake was later found out by the Deputy Director of Education and without referring the matter to O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..7..
the Government, the Deputy Director of Education (who had initially issued the mistaken order) in his capacity as the appointing authority, had issued Anx.A8 order dated 30.3.2016, modifying the prior appointment order at Anx.A6, whereby the scale of pay of the applicant was reduced to Rs.6680-10780 purportedly for correcting the mistake in the scale of pay shown in the initial appointment order. The applicant was seriously aggrieved thereby inasmuch as the order at Anx.A5 G.O. dated 02.06.2012 was the product of a cabinet decision of the Government and Anx.A13 are the papers of the cabinet decision in that regard and a reading of Anx.A5 and the other papers would make it clear that the same was issued by resort to the relaxation of the Rules as provided in Rule 39 of KS & SSR (Part-II). Hence the applicant contended that though the Rules do not provide for an appointment of HSA (Physical Education), in the High School Section in the scale of pay of Rs.8390-10270, and though she does not possess the qualification of B.Ed. for the post of HSA, the Government in exercise of its discretion to relax the rigour of the O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..8..
Rules, has resorted to the special power conferred under Rule 39 of the KS & SSR (Part-II) and has indeed created a post of HSA (Physical Education), for the purpose of appointment of the applicant as per Anx.A13 & Anx.5, etc. and that therefore the said policy decision taken by the Government to relax the rigour of the Rule and to give the abovesaid appointment to the applicant as a special case taking into account her outstanding performance in the sports field could not have been altered with by the lower authority, the Deputy Director of Education. Further that since she has M.P.Ed. Qualification, the Government has relaxed the requisite B.Ed. qualification for the post of HSA. Hence, she argued that the cabinet decision of the Government could not have been altered by the lower authority, viz, the Deputy Director of Education.
7. Moreover, it was a conscious policy decision of relaxation rendered by the Government and there was no question of any mistake and that the Government also knew that as O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..9..
per the general norms, there is no post of HSA (Physical Education) in the above higher scale of pay. But, that, taking into account the extra-ordinary sports achievements of the applicant, the Government has indeed exercised its high discretion and prerogative to issue an order in the nature of Anx.A5 granting the benefit of appointment to the applicant as HSA (Physical Education) in the above higher scale of pay and that the same cannot be reviewed or cancelled even by the Government.
8. With the abovesaid grievances the applicant had initially moved the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Ernakulam Bench) by filing O.A.(EKM) No.1052/2016. The Tribunal as per Anx.A11 final order dated 08.09.2016 had quashed the impugned order passed by the lower authority (Deputy Director of Education) and had remitted the matter to the Government to consider the matter afresh and pass orders after granting reasonable O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..10..
opportunity of being heard to the applicant. It is pursuant thereto that the Government has issued the impugned Anx.A-12 G.O.(Rt) No.3974/2017/G.Edn. dated 22.06.2017. By Anx.A12 the Government has taken the stand that the appointment of the applicant as HSA (Physical Education) in the higher scale of pay is a mistake liable to be corrected and that the only post of Physical Education Teacher in the High School section is Physical Education Teacher (High School) viz., PET (HS), which would fall in the lower scale of pay of Rs.6680-10780 and accordingly it was ordered that the applicant is entitled to secure appointment as PET (HS) only in the said lower scale of pay and not in the higher scale of pay of Rs.8390-13270. The Government also upheld the direction of the Deputy Director of Education to order recovery of the excess payments made to the applicant. In that regard, the Deputy Director of Education had earlier issued Anx.A8 order dated 30.03.2016 modifying the appointment order and also directing recovery of the excess pay. The Tribunal has given various detailed reasonings for upholding the substantive decision O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..11..
taken by the Government in Anx.A12 whereby it was held that the applicant is entitled to get appointment only in the post of PET (HS) the lower scale of pay and not in the higher scale of pay of HSA and that the earlier decision of the Government was a mistake.
9. Though the original applicant had also filed a separate Original Petition (KAT) as O.P.(KAT) No.89/2021 before this Court so as to challenge Ext.P5 final order of the Tribunal dated 27.11.2018, the applicant has now sought leave to withdraw the said O.P. and this Court as per a separate judgment rendered today has already dismissed the said O.P.(KAT) No.89/2021 filed by the applicant with liberty to her to support the decision of the Tribunal, to the extent it is in her favour. Therefore we are concerned only with the correctness or otherwise of the decision rendered by the Tribunal at Ext.P5, to the extent it has directed that recovery of the excess pay stands interdicted.
10. The learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on decisions of the Apex Court in cases as in Chandi Prasad O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..12..
Uniyal & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Others [2012 (8) SCC 417] to argue the proposition that since admittedly excess amounts have been paid to the applicant, the same is liable for refund, etc.
11. After hearing both sides, it has to be borne in mind that it was none other than the Government at the cabinet level who has considered the matter as can be seen from Anx.A13 which led to the final decision at Anx.A5 G.O.(MS) No.134/2012/GAD dated 02.06.2012 and has ordered in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 39 of KS & SSR Part II that the original applicant will stand appointed to the post of HSA (Physical Education) in the scale of pay of Rs.8390-13270.
12. There is no dispute that as per the general norms there is no post of HSA (Physical Education) in the Government High Schools and the post of HSA is available to subjects like languages and core subjects and the scale of pay attached to the said post of HSA is Rs.8390-13270, for which one of the qualification is B.Ed. There is also no dispute that both at the High School section and at O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..13..
the Primary section, the teacher appointed to teach the subject of Physical Education is designated as Physical Education Teacher (High School section) as well as Physical Education Teacher (Primary section) and both these posts of Physical Education Teacher would fall within the same lower scale of pay of Rs.6680-10780. A reading of the Gazette Notification dated 06.09.2010, pursuant to which applications were invited which later led to the decision of the Government at Anx.A5 would show that the Government has created supernumerary post of Assistant, LDC & HSA, etc. So, when the Government has taken the conscious decision to offer appointment to the applicant as per Anx.A5 HSA (Physical Education) to sports persons in the above scale of pay, which is in same scale as that of HSA, any person standing at the shoe of the original applicant would have bona-fide and reasonably thought that the said offer was made by the Government in favour of the original applicant, taking into consideration her extra-ordinary merit and performance as a sports person and that the said order being issued by exercising the powers under Rule 39 of KS & SSR (Part-II) would have been O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..14..
issued in relaxation and deviance from the general norms and that it is a final decision of the Government to give a special appointment to the applicant as HSA (Physical Education) in the above scale of pay. So, the original applicant continued to be under this bona-fide belief and impression and even the Deputy Director of Education had initially issued order in the nature of Anx.A6 as early as on 23.05.2013, appointing her as Physical Education Teacher (High School) in the scale of pay of Rs.8390-13270, etc and she was even regularised by the order of the Deputy Director of Education, as per Anx.A7 proceedings dated 19.08.2015. It is long thereafter, that the Deputy Director of Education has woken up from deep slumber and has issued Anx.A8 order dated 30.03.2016 modifying Anx.A6 order and that too without getting any permission from the Government. It is much later and after the remit of the matter by the Tribunal to the Government that the Government has issued the instant Anx.A12 order dated 22.06.2017, re-iterating the stand of the Deputy Director of Education. Therefore, for the period from the issuance of Anx.A5 O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..15..
order dated 02.06.2012 up to the issuance of Anx.A12 order dated 22.06.2017 by the Government, any person standing in the shoe of the original applicant would have bona-fide and reasonably thought that the said offer of appointment, though not conceived as per the general norms, was certainly an appointment made in the discretion of the Government and in relaxation of the rules. The Government and the Department have no case that the applicant has in any manner contributed to the mistake. It is much later that the departmental authorities and the Government have taken steps to rectify the same. Instead of referring the matter to the Government, the Deputy Director of Education had taken unilateral action, which was beyond his jurisdiction and which has been rightly interfered with by the Tribunal in the previous round of litigation. In these circumstances, we are in full concurrence with the considered views of the Tribunal that the rationale of the decision of the Apex Court in cases as in Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case (supra) cannot be imported to the facts and circumstances of this case. On the other hand, we are of the view O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..16..
that the Tribunal has rightly found that the case of the applicant would require equitable interdiction in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in decisions as in Rafiq Masih's case viz., State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others [(2015) 4 SCC 334]. It will be pertinent to refer to paragraph No.18 of White Washer's case (supra) which reads as follows:
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021
..17..
13. Later the Apex Court has rendered the judgment in the case in High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh [AIR 2016 SC 3523] paragraph No.9, which reads as follows:-
"9. The submission of the Respondent, which found favour with the High Court, was that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has retired from the service of the state. This, in our view, will have no application to a situation such as the present where an undertaking was specifically furnished by the officer at the time when his pay was initially revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be adjusted. While opting for the benefit of the revised pay scale, the Respondent was clearly on notice of the fact that a future re-fixation or revision may warrant an adjustment of the excess payment, if any, made."
14. In paragraph No.10 of the judgment in Jagdev Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court has extracted paragraph No.18 of White Washer's case (supra) and in paragraph No.11 in Jagdev Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court held as follows:-
"11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking."
15. The Division Bench of this Court in the case in State of Kerala & Others v. Vinod Kumar [2020 (4) KLT 230] O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..18..
in paragraph No.7 thereof has considered the effect of Jagdev Singh's case (supra) on the judgment in White Washer's case (supra). The Division Bench of this Court in Vinod Kumar's case (supra) has held in paragraph No.7 thereof as follows:-
"7. In the light of the contentions raised before us, it is necessary to consider the law laid down in Jagdev Singh and to see whether this later judgment of the Supreme Court makes a complete departure from the law laid down in Rafiq Masih. In Jagdev Singh, pay revision benefits were extended to a judicial officer (the employee concerned) from time to time. During each of these occasions, as per the rules applicable to him, he had undertaken to refund any excess payment that may be made. Following the revision of pay scales upon implementation of the First National Judicial Pay Commission ('Shetty Commission') recommendations, the pay of the officer was again revised. The officer was compulsorily retired from service, on January 7, 2002. In February 2004 proceedings for recovery of payments made in excess were initiated against him. On his writ petition, the High Court came to the conclusion that any excess payment made to him prior to his retirement could not be recovered, there being no fraud or misrepresentation on his part. The judgment of the High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court, on a short ground which we will notice after setting out the law laid down in Rafiq Masih. In Rafiq Masih the Supreme Court had, in paragraph 18 of the judgment, observed as follows:-
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..19..
recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
After noticing the categories of situations set out as (i) to (v) in paragraph 18 of Rafiq Masih, the Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh held in paragraph 11 as follows:-
"11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking."
On a reading of both Rafiq Masih and Jagdev Singh, it is difficult for us to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that Jagdev Singh is a complete departure from the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih. From a reading of paragraphs 10 and 11 of Jagdev Singh, it appears to us that the Supreme Court had only clarified that in the case of recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, there would be no bar in ordering recovery, if the employee concerned had executed an undertaking agreeing to refund any excess payment. We cannot read Jagdev Singh as having laid down the proposition that in every case where there is an undertaking as aforesaid, recovery can be ordered from the employee concerned whatever be the point of time that such payment was made. We cannot overlook the fact that there is not even a suggestion in Jagdev Singh that in the event of there being an undertaking to refund excess pay, none of the situations envisaged as items (i) to (v) of Rafiq Masih can be pressed into service."
16. It can thus be seen that the Apex Court in Jagdev Singh's case (supra) has not interfered with the directions contained in para No.18 of the judgment in White Washer's case (supra) regarding clauses (i), (iii), (iv) & (v). The sole modification made in the Jagdev Singh's case (supra) was in relation to clause O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..20..
(ii) of the directions issued in paragraph No.18 of White Washer's case (supra).
17. Taking note of the abovesaid extenuating circumstances in this case, we are of the view that the Tribunal was fully justified to hold that if the recovery of the excess pay made as per Anx.A8, as permitted in Anx.A12, then the same would be highly harsh, oppressive and iniquitous to such an extent that it would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. There cannot be any doubt that the original applicant has not contributed to, in any manner, for the abovesaid error in the initial appointment orders. The applicant has categorically and clearly disclosed all the details of her qualifications and work experience and if the authorities concerned had applied their mind, then the mistake as the one which occurred in Anx.A5, would not have happened. All throughout the applicant was under the bona- fide belief that it was a special benefit conferred in her favour by the exercise of discretion by the Government and that too, at the cabinet level and therefore, recovery of the said excess pay for the O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..21..
period prior to the impugned order will be harsh and iniquitous. However, we make it clear that the pay of the applicant will stand regulated on the basis of the impugned order with prospective effect. We make it clear that we are only affirming the directions and orders passed by the Tribunal especially in the matter of interdiction with the excess pay paid to the applicant. In other words, no interference is called for with the verdict of the Tribunal. The petition lacks merit and therefore the original petition will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/-
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE Skk MMG/290620 21 O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..22..
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT).NO.74/2021 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF BA IN MALAYALAM DATED 26.09.2001 ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF M.PED DATED 12.05.2005 ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF M.PHIL DATED 03.12.2010 ANNEXURE-A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ANNEXURE-A5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.134/2012/GAD DATED 02.06.21012 OF THE GOVERNMENT AND RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES ANNEXURE-A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DATED 23.05.2013 ANNEXURE-A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DISTRICT DATED 19.08.2015 ANNEXURE-A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DATED 30.03.2016 ANNEXURE-A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3/21271/12 DATED 12.07.2016 ANNEXURE-A10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 08.07.2013 ANNEXURE-A11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2016 IN OA NO.1052/2016 ANNEXURE-A12 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.3974/2017/GAD DATED 22.06.2017 O.P. (KAT) No. 74 of 2021 ..23..
ANNEXURE-A13 TRUE COPY OF THE CABINET NOTE NO.5072/SD-
1/11/GAD AND DECISION TAKEN ON 30.05.2012 RELATING TO THE SPORTS QUOTA APPOINTMENT FOR THE YEAR 2006-08 AND 2009 OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT ANNEXURE -A5A TRUE COPY OF THE APPENDIX OF G.O(MS) NO.134/12/GAD DATED 02.06.2012 EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.ALONG WITH ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA(E) 1307/2017 DATED 27.11.2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.72859/SD1/09/P & ARD DATED 04.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER