Kerala High Court
Sujith.T.G vs State Of Kerla on 14 July, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KER 531
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.
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.71 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) 23/2020 DATED 14-02-2020 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS:
SUJITH.T.G
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. M.P.GOPALAN, PADINJARETUKALUKUTHUMKADAVU,
MANAPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 526,
ASSISTANT (SENIOR GRADE), OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE
GENERAL, KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.B.HOOD
SMT.M.ISHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERLA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
001.
2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (AR 12)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
001.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 2 :-
3 SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, LAW DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4 SECRETARY
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE
ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
5 KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
R4 SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH- SR. G.P.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).75/2020,
OP(KAT).76/2020, OP(KAT).77/2020, OP(KAT).78/2020,
OP(KAT).80/2020, OP(KAT).83/2020, OP(KAT).85/2020,
OP(KAT).106/2020, OP(KAT).109/2020, OP(KAT).123/2020, THE
COURT ON 14-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 3 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.75 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 2567/2019 DATED 14-02-2020 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:
1 NELSON J. ELOOKUNNEL
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. JOJO ELOOKUNNEL, ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
033
(RESIDING AT AGRA 45, KURISSADI, NALANCHIRA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 015) PHONE 9496837566
2 RENJINI MATHEW,
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O. DR. R JAYANARAYANAN, SENIOR GRADE
ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033.(RESIDING AT
PRARTHANA, HSRA C-60(2)
TC 55/2313, KALADY, KARAMANA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002) PHONE 9995993388.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 4 :-
3 AYYAPPADAS P.S,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. N. PRABHAKARA PANICKER, ASSISTANT SECTION
OFFICER, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT DEVI
KAVUVILA SNRA-45, MUKKOLAKKAL P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 043
PHONE 9496500568
4 DARVISH A.H,
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL HADI A, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT GHRA-
B1, PROVIDENCE, GAFF HILL, SREEKARIYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 017
PHONE 9400990627
5 MUHAMMED SHIRASI M,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. J MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, SENIOR GRADE
ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT P.V
HOUSE, KANNIAKULANGARA, VENBAYAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 615
PHONE 8547976809
6 ABHILASH M.S,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. P.S MANIKANTAN NAIR (LATE)
SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033.
RESIDING AT ROHINI KRA-173, KONCHIRAVILA,
MANACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009 PHONE
8907205572
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 5 :-
7 VIVEK S,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. K. SUGATHAN, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
CHINMAYAM, VIVEKANANDHANAGAR, SANTHIVILA,
VELLAYANI, NEMAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695
020 PHONE 7907631622
8 PRAMOD P,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. N PADMANABHAN NAIR, ASSISTANT SECTION
OFFICER, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
MADATHUVILAVEEDU, VILAVOORKAL, MALAYINKIL P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 571
PHONE 9447332272
9 SHAJU M,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. N. MANIYAN ASSARI, ASSISTANT SECTION
OFFICER, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
THEKKEKARA VEEDU, KULAKKIKONAM, ANAD P.O,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541
PHONE 8547480492
10 SHYJITH K,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.R AVINDRAN K, AMENITIES ASSISTANT, MLA
HOSTEL, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT NRA
205, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033
PHONE 8089610186
11 SREEKUMAR R
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
UTHRAM, THANNIPPARA, VETTINAD, VATTAPPARA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 028 PHONE 8547187955
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 6 :-
12 ARUN S,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. SUDHAKARAN G, ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
KARTHIKA, ARTHRASSERY, CHEMPAZHANTHY P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 587
PHONE 9605468762
13 RINKU MAHESH,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. B MAHESWARAN NAIR, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
KRISHNA, ARA 192, G KRISHNAN NAIR ROAD,
VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 035
PHONE 6238222013
14 JAYAKUMAR S,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, ASSISTANT SECTION
OFFICER, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
UTHRAM, TRA 2D, MOOLATHOPU, PERUKAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 573
PHONE 9526334782
15 KAILAS NATH G,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. GOPINATHAN N, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033
RESIDING AT TC 28/2492, RAJAJI NAGAR, G.P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
PHONE 8075465509
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 7 :-
16 RAGI K M KETANHOTH MEETHAL,
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O. MANOJAN K, ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033.
RESIDING AT KETANHOTH MEETHAL HOUSE, MENHANNIAM
P.O, PERAMBRA (VIA), KOZHIKODE 673 525
PHONE 9539382 323
17 SWAPNA E.V,
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O. SUNITH P.C, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-695 033. RESIDING AT SARANGI, VIZHAVOOR
MALAYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 571 PHONE
9745548660
18 AKHILA R,
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O. MANU G, ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033.
RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, T.C 40/2011 AERA-254,
ARAYALLOOR, THIRUMALA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 006 PHONE 9497268586
19 BINDU S NAIR,
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O. ANILKRISHNAN K, ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-695 033. RESIDING AT KEERTHANAM,
MARUTHOORKADAVU, KARAMANA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002
PHONE 9074596691
20 SARATH BABU M.K,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. (LATE) M.K KUNJUMON, ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-695 033. RESIDING AT JAYASREE NILAYAM, TC/54,
PAPPANAMKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 018 PHONE
9744199096
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 8 :-
21 ROHINI J.S,
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O. SURAJ KUMAR S, ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-695 033. RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 104, EMERALD
MEADOWS, AISWARYA GARDENS, KARUMOM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002 PHONE 9746090751
22 SAFEER K,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. KALEEMULLAH K M, ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-695 033. RESIDING AT ZEENA MANZIL, NILAMEL,
KOLLAM 691 535 PHONE 9995308490
23 VISHNU NAMBOOTHIRI K G,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. (LATE) KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
EDASSERI MADOM, KOVOOR, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O,
VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 146
PHONE 9995124801
24 SUNU VARGHESE,
AGED 29 YEARS
W/O. ABEES VARGHESE, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
KOTTACKAL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY P.O, ALAPUZHA 688
013 PHONE 9746872764
25 SREELEKHA RAMACHANDRAN,
AGED 31 YEARS
W/O. SUNILKUMAR A, ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-695 033. RESIDING AT REVATHY, NEAR POST
OFFICE, CHEMBAZHANTHY P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 587, PHONE 9400797114
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 9 :-
26 NISHA R ASOK,
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. DEEPAK P.S, ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
SWASTHIKA, PAAYIKKUZHI, OACHIRA P.O, KOLLAM 690
526 PHONE 9747825681
27 NISHA V,
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. SREEKUMAR R, ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033.
RESIDING AT PLAVILAYIL HOUSE, ERUMAKUZHY,
NOORANAD P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 504
PHONE 9495287014
28 REMYA L RAJ,
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O. SELVARAJ S, ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033.
RESIDING AT TC-31/1197(1), THAZHASSERI, THOPPIL
VEEDU, PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024
PHONE 9544401151
29 SANAL KUMAR W,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. D WILLS KUMAR, SENIOR GRADE COMPUTER
ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
MIZPAH, TC 87/209(1), VALIYATHURA, VALLAKADAVU
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 008 PHONE
9895548697
30 SANDHYA T.K,
AGED 38 YEARS
W//O. VINO V.K, OFFICE ATTENDANT GRADE-1,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
KALAYIKKATTU HOUSE, THIDANAD P.O, KOTTAYAM 686
123 PHONE 9495010991
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 10 :-
31 NITHIN P.K,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. KUNHIRAMAN K.C, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
VRINDHAPURI HOUSE, G.G ROAD, MULLERIA POST,
KASARAGOD 671 543 PHONE 9495618227
32 NAZIYA NASEER
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O. NASEER E, CONFIDENTIAL ASSISTANT GR.1,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT N.N
NIVAS, MANALAKOM, KUDAVOOR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 313 PHONE 9400647001
33 BENCY ANAND,
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. P. ANILKUMAR, ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
CHANDRAKALABHAM ENIKKARA, KARAKULAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 564 PHONE 9633124372
34 SREEJA J,
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. SREEKUMAR K, CONFIDENTIAL ASSISTANT GRADE-
1, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
SREERAJ BHAVAN, KRISHNAPURAM P.O, KAYAMKULAM
690 533
PHONE 7012634316
35 SHIBU V.S,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. V.K SREEDHARAN, AMENITIES ASSISTANT, MLA
HOSTEL, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
VILASINI NIVAS, KATTUCHANDA, POIKAMUKKU P.O,
ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 103 PHONE
9447003911
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 11 :-
36 DHANYA P NAIR,
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. RAJESH G, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-695 033. RESIDING AT KALA BHAVAN,
VALIYAKATTAKKAL, VENJARAMOOD P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 607
PHONE 9895494094
37 PREEJAMOL P.P,
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O. SULABHAN N, ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
SULABHA BHAVAN, MARUTHAMONPALLY, POOYAPPALLY
P.O, KOLLAM 691 537
PHONE 9400201892
38 MUKESH M ABRAHAM,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW ABRAHAM, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033
RESIDING AT THEKKEBHAGATHU, AKSHAYA NAGAR A13
A1
MOONGODE P.O, THACHOTTUKAVU VIA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 573 PHONE 9645689709
39 SUDHEER A,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.A BDUL SALAM, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
NELLIPALLY KIZHAKKATHIL, MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM
690 519
PHONE 9400547925
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 12 :-
40 SOUMYA S.P,
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O. DILEESH H.S, ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033.
RESIDING AT THANAL VILLA, ELAVATTOM, ELAVATTOM
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 562
PHONE 8921480728
41 JITHIN NOBLE,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. M S NOBLE, AMENITIES ASSISTANT, MLA
HOSTEL, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033. RESIDING AT
SNEHAGEETHAM, BENGLAMKUNNU, NILAMEL P.O, KOLLAM
691 535 PHONE 6282521649
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D SUDHAKARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2 THE SECRETARY,
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.S.C OFFICE,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).71/2020,
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 13 :-
OP(KAT).76/2020, OP(KAT).77/2020, OP(KAT).78/2020,
OP(KAT).80/2020, OP(KAT).83/2020, OP(KAT).85/2020,
OP(KAT).106/2020, OP(KAT).109/2020, OP(KAT).123/2020, THE
COURT ON 14-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 14 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.76 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 187/2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:
1 NELSON J. ELLOKUNNEL
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.JOJO ELOOKUNNEL, ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695015) PHONE 9496837566
2 RENJINI MATHEW
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O.DR.R.JAYANARAYANAN, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033(RESIDING AT
PRARTHANA, HSRA C-60(2) TC 55/2313, KALADY,
KARAMANA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002) PHONE
9995993388
3 AYYAPPADAS.P.S
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.N.PRABHAKARA PANICKER, ASSISTANT SECTION
OFFICE, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT DEVI,
KAVUVILA SNRA-45, MUKKOLAKKAL.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043, PHONE 9946500568
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 15 :-
4 DARVISH.A.H
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL HADI.A, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT GHRA-B1,
PROVIDENCE, GRAFF HILL, SREEKARIYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695017, PHONE 9400990627
5 MUHAMMED SHIRASI.M
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.J MUHAMMED MUSTAHFA SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT
P.V.HOUSE, KANNIAKULANGAR, VENBAYAM.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695615 PHONE 8547976809
6 ABHILASH.M.S
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.P.S.MANIKANTAN NAIR(LATE) SENIOR GRADE
ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT 'ROHINI'
KRA-173, KONCHIRAVILA, MANACAUD.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009 PHONE 8907205572
7 VIVEK.S.
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.K.SUGATHAN, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695033 RESIDING AT 'CHINMAYA',
VIVEKANANDHANAGAR, SANTHIVILA, VELLAYANI,
NEMAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020, PHONE
7907631622
8 PRAMOD.P
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.N PADMANABHAN NIAR, ASSISTANT SECTION
OFFICER, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT
MADATHUVILAVEEDU, VILAVOORKAL,
MALAYINKIL.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695571 PHONE
9447332272
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 16 :-
9 SHAJU.M
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.N.MANIYAN ASSARI, ASSISTANT SECTION
OFFICER, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, RESIDING AT
THEKKEKARA VEEDU, KULAKKIKONAM, ANAD.P.O,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695541, PHONE
8547480492
10 SHYJITH.K
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.RAVINDRAN K, AMENITIES ASSISTANT, MLA
HOSTEL, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, RESIDING AT NRA 205,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 PHONE
8089610186
11 SREEKUMAR.R
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT UTHRAM,
THANNIPPARA, VETTINAD, VATTAPPARA.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695028, PHONE 8547187955
12 ARUN.S
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.SUDHAKARAN G, ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, RESIDING AT
KARTHIKA, ARTHRASSERY, CHEMPAZHANTHY.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695587, PHONE 9605468762
13 RINKU MAHESH
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.B MAHESWARAN NAIR, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, RESIDING AT KRISHNA,
ARA-192, G KRISHNAN NIAR ROAD, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035, PHONE 6238222013
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 17 :-
14 JAYAKUMAR S
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, ASSISTANT SECTION
OFFICER, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, RESIDING AT UTHRAM,
TRA 2D, MOOLATHOPU, PERUKAVU.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695573 PHONE 9526334782
15 KAILAS NATH G
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.GOPINATHAN NA, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695033, RESIDING AT TC 28/2492, RAJAJI NAGAR,
G.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, PHONE
8075465509
16 RAGI K.M KETANHOTH MEETHAL,
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O.MANOJAN K, ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033,
RESIDING AT KETANHOTH MEETHAL HOUSE,
MENHANNIAM.P.O, PERAMBRA VIA, KOZHIKODE-673525,
PHONE 9539382323
17 SWAPNA E.V
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O.SUNITH.P.C SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695033, RESIDING AT SARANGI, VIZHAVOOR,
MALAYAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695571, PHONE
9745548660
18 AKHILA.R
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O.MANU G, ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGILSATURE
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033,
RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, T.C.40/2011 AERA-254,
ARAYALLOOR, THIRUMALA.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695006 PHONE 9497268586
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 18 :-
19 BINDU S NAIR,
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O.ANILKRISHNAN K, ASSISTANT KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695033 RESIDING AT KEERTHANAM, MARUTHOORKADAVU,
KARAMANA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002, PHONE
9074596691
20 SARATH BABU M.K
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.(LATE) M.K.KUNJUMON, ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695033 RESIDING AT JAYASREE NILAYAM, TC/54,
PAPPANAMKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695018, PHONE
9744199096
21 ROHINI J.S.
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O.SURAJ KUMAR S, ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695033 RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.104, EMERALD
MEADOWS, AISWARYA GARDENS, KARUMOM.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002, PHONE 9746090751
22 SAFEER K
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.KALEEMULLAH.K.M ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695033 RESIDING AT ZEENA MANZIL, NILAMEL,
KOLLAM-691535, PHONE 9995308490
23 VISHNU NAMBOOTHIRI.K.G
AGED 30 YEARS
(LATE) KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695033 RESIDING AT EDASSERI MADOM, KAVOOR,
PALAYAMKUNNU.P.O, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695146, PHONE 9995124801
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 19 :-
24 SANU VARGHESE
AGED 29 YEARS
W/O.ABEES VARGHESE, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT KOTTACAKL
HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY.P.O, ALAPUZHA-688013, PHONE
9746872764
25 SREELEKHA RAMACHADNRAN,
AGED 31 YEARS
W/O.SUNILKUMAR.A, ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING
AT REVATHY, NEAR POST OFFICE,
CHEMBAZHANTHY.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695587,
PHONE 9400797114
26 NISHA R ASOK
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O.DEEPAK.P.S, ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER, ,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT
SWASTHIKA, PAAYIKKUZHI, OACHIRA.P.O, KOLLAM-
690526 PHONE 9747825681
27 NISHA V
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O.SREEKUMAR R ,ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING
AT PLAVILAYIL HOUSE, ERUMAKUZHY, NOORANAD.P.O,
ALAPPUZHA-690504 PHONE 9495287014
28 REMYA L RAJ
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O.SELVARAJ S, ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033,
RESIDING AT TC -31/1197(1), THAZHASSERI,
THOPPIL VEEDU, PATTAH.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695024, PHONE 9544401151
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 20 :-
29 SANAL KUMAR W
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.D.WILLS KUMAR, SENIOR GRADE COMPUTER
ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, RESIDING AT MIZHPAH,
TC 87/209(1), VALIYATHURA, VALLAKADAVU.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008 PHONE 9895548697
30 SANDHYA.T.K
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O.BINO V.K., OFFICE ATTENDANT GRADE-I KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695033 RESIDING AT KALAYIKKATTU HOUSE,
THIDANAD.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686123 PHONE 9495010991
31 NITHIN.P.K
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIRAMAN KC, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT
VRINDHAPURI HOUSE, G.G ROAD, MULLERIA POST,
KASARAGOD-671543 PHONE 9495618227
32 NAZIYA NASEER
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O.NASEER E, CONFIDENTIAL ASSISTANT, GR.I ,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT N.N
NIVAS, MANALAKOM, KUDAVOOR.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695313 PHON 9400647001
33 BENCY ANAND,
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O.P.ANILKUMAR, ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER, ,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT
CHANDRAKALABHAM, ENIKKARA, KARAKULAM.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695564 PHONE 9633124372
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 21 :-
34 SREEJA J
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O.SREEKUMAR K, CONFIDENTIAL ASSISTANT , GRADE
-I, KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPUPRAM-695033 RESIDING AT SREERAJ
BHAVAN, KRISHNAPURAM.P.O, KAYAMKULAM-690533
PHONE 7012634316
35 SHIBU V.S.
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.V.K.SREEDHARAN, AMENITIES ASSISTANT, MLA
HOSTEL, , KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT VILASINI
NIVAS, KATTUCHANDA, POIKAMUKKU.P.O, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695103
36 DHANYA P NAIR
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O.RAJEHS G, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695033 RESIDING AT KALA BHAVAN,
VALIYAKATTAKKAL, VENJARAMOOD.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695607 PHONE 9895494094
37 PREEJAMOL.P.P
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O.SULABHAN N, ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT SULABHA
BHAVAN, MARUTHAMONPALLY, POOYAPPALLY.P.O,
KOLLAM-691537 PHONE 9400201892
38 MUKESH M ABRAHAM
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.MATHEW ABRAHAM, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT
THEKKEBHAGATHU, AKASHAYA NAGAR A13 A1
MOONGODE.P.O, THACHOTTUKAVU VIA
THIRUVANANTHPURAM-695573 PHONE 9645689709
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 22 :-
39 SUDHEER A
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL SALAM, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA
LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695033 RESIDING AT NELLIPALLY KIZHAKKATHIL,
MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690519, PHONE 9400547925
40 SOUMYA S.P.
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O.DILEESH.H.S, ASSISTANT, KERALA LEGISLATURE
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING
AT THANAL VILLA, ELAVATTOM, ELAVATTOM.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPUAM-695562 PHONE 8921480728
41 JITHIN NOBLE
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.M.S.NOBLE, AMENITIES ASSISTANT, MLA HOSTEL,
KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 RESIDING AT
SNEHAGEETHAM, BENGLAMKUNNU, NILAMEL.P.O,
KOLLAM-691535 PHONE 6282521649
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D SUDHAKARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 THE SECRETARY
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 23 :-
3 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PS.C. OFFICE,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).71/2020,
OP(KAT).75/2020, OP(KAT).77/2020, OP(KAT).78/2020,
OP(KAT).80/2020, OP(KAT).83/2020, OP(KAT).85/2020,
OP(KAT).106/2020, OP(KAT).109/2020, OP(KAT).123/2020, THE
COURT ON 14-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 24 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.77 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 188/2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:
1 SAJEESH K.S
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O SIVASANKARAN K, BLOCK PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
SULTHANBATHERY, WAYAND-673 592, RESIDING AT
KALADITHARA HOUSE, NADUVATTOM, SUKAPURAM
P.O.MALAPPURAM-679 576
2 ANEESH C.M,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O MOHANAN C.K, BLOCK PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, (ON
DEPUTATION AS P.A TO M.P.V.K.SREEKANTAN,
PALAKKAD-678 001.RESIDING AT CHITTILAPPILLY,
APOLLO STREET, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR-680 006,
3 DIPU.S,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O SASIDHARAN P, BLOCK PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA-690 514, RESIDING AT
PUTHENVEETTIL, PUTHENCHANTHA P.O.PANMANA,
CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 25 :-
4 BIBIN A.K,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O BHASKARAN A.P, STATE TAX OFFICER, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002, RESIDING AT
AKKARAPARAMBIL, CHERUVADI P.O.MAVOOR VIA,
KOZHIKODE-673 661.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D SUDHAKARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE SECRETARY,
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.S.C OFFICE
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).71/2020,
OP(KAT).75/2020, OP(KAT).76/2020, OP(KAT).78/2020,
OP(KAT).80/2020, OP(KAT).83/2020, OP(KAT).85/2020,
OP(KAT).106/2020, OP(KAT).109/2020, OP(KAT).123/2020, THE
COURT ON 14-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 26 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.78 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 149/2020 DATED 14-02-2020 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:
1 HARIKRISHNAN R.,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,ASSISTANT SECTION
OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
P.S.C.OFFICE, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
004, RESIDING AT TC 29/885, ANJANEYAM,
PALKULANGARA, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 024, PHONE 7293545995.
2 SANJITH V.,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.R.VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, ASSISTANT SECTION
OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
P.S.C.OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
004, RESIDING AT TC 15/275(1), VALMEEKAM,ANRA
36(B), ALTHARA,SASTHAMANGALAM
P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010, PHONE
9605055353.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 27 :-
3 BAIJU R.,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.RAJAPPAN S., SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,KERALA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
P.S.C.OFFICE,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
004, RESIDING AT KEEZHEKUTTIVILAKAM,AYANTHI,
VARKALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141, PHONE
9567689773.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D SUDHAKARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE SECRETARY,PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
001.
3 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.S.C.OFFICE,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).71/2020,
OP(KAT).75/2020, OP(KAT).76/2020, OP(KAT).77/2020,
OP(KAT).80/2020, OP(KAT).83/2020, OP(KAT).85/2020,
OP(KAT).106/2020, OP(KAT).109/2020, OP(KAT).123/2020, THE
COURT ON 14-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 28 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.80 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) 78/2020 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS:
1 SHAKARIYA A.M.
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. K.M. BAVA, AZOORA MANZIL, NEDERY P O,
QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE-673620, ASSISTANT, OFFICE
OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 SUMI BHAI S
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O. BASHEER RAWTHER, PUTHOTTU HOUSE, PANANGADU
P.O, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR-680665, ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.
3 NAHANA A.M,
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O. MOHAMED A I, AYYARIL HOUSE, THANISSERY P
O, THRISSUR-680701, ASSISTANT,OFFICE OF THE
ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.B.HOOD
SMT.M.ISHA
SRI.AMAL KASHA
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 29 :-
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (AR 12),
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
3 LAW SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, LAW DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4 SECRETARY TO ADVOCATE GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.
5 KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PATTOM PALACE P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).71/2020,
OP(KAT).75/2020, OP(KAT).76/2020, OP(KAT).77/2020,
OP(KAT).78/2020, OP(KAT).83/2020, OP(KAT).85/2020,
OP(KAT).106/2020, OP(KAT).109/2020, OP(KAT).123/2020, THE
COURT ON 14-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 30 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.83 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 97/2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS 1 TO 7:
1 RAJEEV .B
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.BHASKARAN ACHARY, THAMARAPPALLI,
PULIYOOR.P.O.CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA-689510,
ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE
ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA ERNAKULAM 682031
2 SUPRIYA K.S.
AGED 43 YEARS
D/O.K.K.SUBRAMANIAN, THALASSERY HOUSE,
KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR-680664, SECTION OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA
ERNAKULAM 682031
3 RAJEESHA.K.N
AGED 39 YEARS
D/O.KUTTAPPAN R.SANDRAM. T.C.18/1048(2),
ARMADA.P.O.THRIKKANNAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695032, ASSISTNAT (SENIOR GRADE),OFFICE OF THE
ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA ERNAKULAM 682031
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 31 :-
4 ARCHANA B
AGED 43 YEARS
D/O.LATE V.N.BHASKARAN, SREEBHADRA, NEAR ESTATE
JUNCTION, ETTUMANOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686631,
ASSISTANT (SENIOR GRADE), OFFICE OF THE
ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA ERNAKULAM 682031
5 DEEPTHI MATHEW
AGED 39 YEARS
D/O.LATE K.C. MATHEW, EZHUTHIL HOUSE,
PAYIPPAD.P.O, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA-690514,
ASSISTANT (SENIOR GRADE), OFFICE OF THE
ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA ERNAKULAM 682031
6 DIVYA V.G.
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O.P.GOPINATHAN, FLAT NO.10H, DD SILVERSSTONE,
PADOM ROAD, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM-682023,
ASSISTANT (SENIOR GRADE), OFFICE OF THE
ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA ERNAKULAM 682031
7 SANGEETHA G
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.K.R.PRAKASH, KRISHNA, IRATTAKALUNGU,
MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695571,
ASSISTANT (SENIOR GRADE), OFFICE OF THE
ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA ERNAKULAM 682031
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.B.HOOD
SMT.M.ISHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & APPLICANTS 8 TO 10:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 32 :-
2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM(AR 12)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001
3 LAW SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, LAW DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
4 SECRETARY TO ADVOCATE GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031
5 KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM
PALACE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004
6 MEERA.A.S
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O.K.AMBUJAKSHAN, VYSAKHAM, WARRIAM PARAMBIL,
PUNNAPARA NORTH.P.O, ALAPPUZHA-688014,
ASSISTANT(SENIOR GRADE), OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE
GENERAL, KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
7 ANTU JOHN
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.JOHN C.J.CHULLIKKAT HOUSE, KOTTUVALLY,
KAITHARAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM-683519, ASSISTANT
(SENIOR GRADE), OFFICE OF ADVOCATE GENERAL,
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
8 RANJITHA S. SHENOY
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O.R.SUNDARESH SHENOY, H.NO.4/1379 A1,
RIDHISIDHI, ROYAL COMPOUND, KOCHI-682002,
ASSISTANT (SENIOR GRADE0, OFFICE OF THE
ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).71/2020,
OP(KAT).75/2020, OP(KAT).76/2020, OP(KAT).77/2020,
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 33 :-
OP(KAT).78/2020, OP(KAT).80/2020, OP(KAT).85/2020,
OP(KAT).106/2020, OP(KAT).109/2020, OP(KAT).123/2020, THE
COURT ON 14-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 34 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.85 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 2338/2019 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS IN OA:
1 ANIL.M.GEORGE
AGED 47 YEARS
MODY COTTAGE KARIKULAM P.O. RANNI,
PATHANAMTHITTA 689 673.
2 JAYAPRADEEP.V.M.,
AGED 44 YEARS
VALIYAVEETTIL (H) RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, CSEZ P.O.
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, 682 037.
3 SUMITHA M.S,
AGED 37 YEARS
VISAKHAM B 20, TC 2/965-2, PALOOR LANE,
MURINJAPALAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 011.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SRI.P.SATHEESH KUMAR (S-3441)
SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.
RESPONDENTS:
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 35 :-
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KERALA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PLACE P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA 695 004.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
PRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPORTMENT, GOVT.
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 001.
3 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 001.
4 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).71/2020,
OP(KAT).75/2020, OP(KAT).76/2020, OP(KAT).77/2020,
OP(KAT).78/2020, OP(KAT).80/2020, OP(KAT).83/2020,
OP(KAT).106/2020, OP(KAT).109/2020, OP(KAT).123/2020, THE
COURT ON 14-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 36 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.106 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 198/2020 DATED 14-02-2020 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS IN OA:
1 AJITHKUMAR S.,
AGED 39 YEARS
(ASST. SECTION OFFICER, KPSC, PATTOM PALACE
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), THATHWAMASI,
THRIJYOTHIPURAM, ANDOORKONAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 584.
2 ALBIN RAJ D.S.,
(OFFICE ATTENDANT, KPSC, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), THAMARAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
KEEZHKOLLA, AMARAVILA P.O., PIN - 695 122.
3 ABDUL RASHEED M.,
(SR.GRADE ASST. KPSC, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), VARUVILAKOM, MUSLIMAR
HOUSE, POOVAR P.O., PIN - 695 525.
4 RAKESH BALU K.S.,
(COMP. ASST.GR.II,KPSC, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), KESAVEEYAM,
MANGATTUKADAVU, THIRUMALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 006.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 37 :-
5 GOPAKUMAR S.S.,
(SR.GR.ASST., KPSC, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), AYILYAM KOPPACHI VILAKOM,
PALOTTUVILA, MALAYINKEEZH P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 571.
6 SUJI RAJ L.,
(ASSISTANT, KPSC, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), SUJI BHAVAN, ANAPPARA
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 551.
7 SHIJINIMOL THAMPI C.,
(OFFICE ATTENDANT, KPSC, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), PALAYORATH HOUSE,
UNNAKKAVU P.O., ANGADI, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA.
8 JESSY C.B.,
(ASST. SECTION OFFICER, KPSC, PATTOM PALACE
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), SUMANDIR, TC V/1075,
PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PEROORKADA
P.O., PIN - 695 005.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SRI.P.SATHEESH KUMAR (S-3441)
SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.
RESPONDENTS:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695 004.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).71/2020,
OP(KAT).75/2020, OP(KAT).76/2020, OP(KAT).77/2020,
OP(KAT).78/2020, OP(KAT).80/2020, OP(KAT).83/2020,
OP(KAT).85/2020, OP(KAT).109/2020, OP(KAT).123/2020, THE
COURT ON 14-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 38 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.109 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 2417/2019 DATED 14-02-2020 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN OA:
SURESH KUMAR R.C.
AGED 36 YEARS
U.G.-58,ULLOOR GARDENTS, ULLOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE, P.O., PIN-
695 011, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SRI.P.SATHEESH KUMAR (S-3441)
SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA,PIN-695 004
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 39 :-
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695 001
R1 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).71/2020,
OP(KAT).75/2020, OP(KAT).76/2020, OP(KAT).77/2020,
OP(KAT).78/2020, OP(KAT).80/2020, OP(KAT).83/2020,
OP(KAT).85/2020, OP(KAT).106/2020, OP(KAT).123/2020, THE
COURT ON 14-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 40 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.123 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 2287/2019 DATED 14-02-2020 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN OA:
SANTHOSH S.T.,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.STEEPHEN C., ASSISTANT ENGINEER, INNURM
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, JALABHAVAN, KERALA
WATER AUTHORITY, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT
KALLUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, OOTTUKUZHI,
MANGALATHUKONAM, KATTACHALKUZHI P.O.,
BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-695503, KERALA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.RAHIM
SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN
SRI.R.RAHMATHULLAH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 -7 IN OA:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 41 :-
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
5 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
6 THE SECRETARY,
LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
7 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS,
M.G.ROAD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).71/2020,
OP(KAT).75/2020, OP(KAT).76/2020, OP(KAT).77/2020,
OP(KAT).78/2020, OP(KAT).80/2020, OP(KAT).83/2020,
OP(KAT).85/2020, OP(KAT).106/2020, OP(KAT).109/2020, THE
COURT ON 14-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 42 :-
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
OP (KAT) Nos.71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80 83, 85, 106, 109 & 123/2020 Dated this the 14th day of July, 2020 Shaffique, J.
These Original petitions arise from a common order dated 14/2/2020 in OA (EKM) No. 23/2020 and connected cases.
2. The applicants before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal are employees of the Legislature Secretariat, Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), Advocate General's Office, Teachers of Higher Secondary School (HSST) and an employee of a Public Sector Undertaking. They have approached the Tribunal seeking a direction that they should also be permitted to participate in the selection being conducted to the cadre of Kerala Administrative Service (for short 'KAS').
3. The Kerala Administrative Service (KAS) Rules, 2018, (hereinafter referred as the '2018 Rules') framed under the Kerala OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 43 :- Public Services Act, 1968, created the cadre of KAS. The strength at the entry level in the KAS was limited to 10% of the sanctioned strength of second gazetted post in the departments and equivalent post in the common categories of posts in the departments as specified in Schedule I to the 2018 Rules. There are three streams of selection, all by way of direct recruitment. Stream 1 is from qualified persons between the age of 21 years and 32 as on 1 st January of the year in which the applications are invited. Stream 2 is from among full members or approved probationers in any Government Departments excluding gazetted officers from the departments mentioned in Schedule I. The age limit for applying is between 21 years and 40 years. Stream 3 is from among persons who were first gazetted officers or above in the departments mentioned in Schedule 1, and not above 50 years of age as on 1 st January of the year in which the applications are invited. Item (3) in column 3 of Stream 3, further indicates the candidate 'must have satisfactorily completed probation in any cadre in Government or probation has not been declared in the current post even after the period of probation due to administrative delay, but against whom no major penalty has been imposed or OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 44 :- proceedings for a major penalty or criminal proceedings is in progress'.
4. OP (KAT) No.71/2020 which arises from OA (EKM) No.23/2020 has been filed by an employee of Advocate General's office. He applied under Stream 1 and 2. The application under Stream 2 has been rejected stating that employees of constitutional bodies had been excluded from the purview of Stream 2. OP(KAT) No.83/2020 arises from OA(EKM) No.97/2020 and OP(KAT) No.80/2020 arises from OA (EKM)No.78/2020. They are also employees of Advocate General's office. Their applications were rejected on the ground that they are employees of constitutional bodies.
5. OP(KAT) No.75/2020 arises from OA No.2567/2019 and OP(KAT) No.76/2020 arises from OA No. 187/2020. The applicants were employees of the Legislature Secretariat. They applied under Stream 2 and their applications were rejected stating that they are employees of a constitutional body. OP(KAT) No.77/2020 arises from OA No.188/2020. The applicants were employees of Legislature Secretariat and applied under Stream 3. Their application has been OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 45 :- rejected on the ground that they do not form part of any Government department. According to them, they were originally appointed in the Legislature Secretariat as Assistants and their probation was declared in the said cadre. Presently, petitioners 1 to 3 are working as Block Panchayat Secretaries and 4th petitioner as Sales Tax Officer. They applied under Stream 3 which came to be rejected by stating that their probation was not declared in any cadre of Government department.
6. OP(KAT) No.109/2020 arises from OA No.2417/2019. The applicant was working as Section Officer of Public Service Commission. He applied under Stream 3 which came to be rejected since Public Service Commission was not included in Schedule I of the Rules. OP(KAT) No.78/2020 arises from OA No.149/2020 and OP(KAT) No. 106/2020 arises from OA No.198/2020. They are employees of KPSC. Their applications under Stream 2 were rejected on the ground that they are not employees of Government Department and they are employees of a constitutional body.
7. OP(KAT) No.85/2020 arises from OA No.2338/2019. The applicants were working as HSST in the Schools coming under the OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 46 :- Kerala General Education Department. Their application was rejected based on Note 2 to Rule 12 of the 2018 Rules, which was incorporated by way of an amendment.
8. OP(KAT) No.123/2020 is filed against OA No.2287/2019. The applicants in the OA are employees of Public Sector Undertakings. Their applications were rejected on the ground that they have not been included in any of the streams. They sought for a declaration that Rule 12 of the 2018 Rules to the extent it excludes the employees of Public Sector Undertakings and autonomous institutions from the purview of feeder category is illegal and unconstitutional.
9. The first contention urged by the applicants is that when regular employees or approved probationers in any Government department other than gazetted officers in the departments mentioned in Schedule I are permitted to participate in the selection process under Stream 2, the regular employees of Legislative Assembly, KPSC and Advocate General's office also should be permitted to participate in the selection process, as they are also employees of the Government.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 47 :-
10. Employees of Public Sector Undertakings have challenged the constitutional validity of the Rules, to the extent they were excluded from the purview of the selection process.
11. Teaching staff in the Education department coming under stream 3, have been excluded from participating in the selection process, by amending the 2018 Rules, incorporating Note 2 to Rule
12. They challenge the Note as unreasonable and unconstitutional.
12. The main contention urged by the employees of the Legislature Secretariat, KPSC and Advocate General's Office is that when the very purpose of creating the cadre of KAS is for building up of public servants as a second line of managerial talent for the effective implementation of Government policies and programmes and thereby to constitute a feeder category for the recruitment of Indian Administrative Service Officers in Kerala cadre through appointment by promotion from State Civil Service category, superseding the existing rules, all Government servants coming within the age limit specified under Streams 2 and 3 ought to be permitted to participate in the selection process. When the whole idea is to get better talents, in addition to 1/3 rd of the direct recruitment, OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 48 :- the other 1/3rd under Stream 2 and 1/3rd under Stream 3 ought not be limited to certain categories of Government employees alone.
13. Learned senior counsel Dr.K.P.Satheesan would argue on behalf of employees of the Legislature Secretariat and KPSC that the service conditions of gazetted and non-gazetted officers are same as that of the employees of State Administrative department. The appointment is made from a common ranked list published by KPSC. Their pay and allowances are also met from the State exchequer. Therefore, the word 'Government department' should be given a wider amplitude and no restriction can be imposed on the said word. As far as the gazetted officers coming under Stream 2 are concerned, the restriction is for Government officers coming under Schedule I and there is no such restriction for gazetted officers working in any other Government department. Therefore, all the Government employees either gazetted or non gazetted coming within the age limit specified under Stream 2 excluding those gazetted officers mentioned in Schedule I are entitled to participate in the selection process. When the Government requires talented persons from among the Government employees, there is no reason to restrict certain category OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 49 :- of Government employees from participating in the selection process, is the contention. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:-
(i) Pashupati Nath Sukul v. Nem Chandra Jain [(1984) 2 SCC 404].
(ii) Hokrani S.A. v.Kouslyabai and Others (AIR 1985 Karnataka 138).
14. Learned counsel Sri.T.B.Hood appearing on behalf of certain officers of the Advocate General's office took us through the provisions of the Constitution and submitted that, though the Advocate General is a Constitutional Authority, the employees of the Advocate General's office come under the Law department and therefore, it is nevertheless a Government department and cannot be excluded from Stream 2.
15. Learned counsel Sri.Jacob P. Alex appearing on behalf of HSST in the Education department, argued that Note 2 to Rule 12 excluding HSS Teachers from the purview of selection under Stream 3 is arbitrary and unreasonable. There is no rationale in making such a classification. It is pointed out that when Teachers in non gazetted OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 50 :- rank can participate in the selection process under stream 2, Teachers in gazetted rank are excluded from participating in the selection by incorporating Note 2 to Rule 12. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in State of J & K v. Trilok Natha Khosa [(1974) 1 SCC 19], E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. [(2005) 1 SCC 394], Union of India v. N. S.Rathnam [(2015) 10 SCC 681], Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University [(1989) 2 SCC 145] and Maharashtra Forest Guards and Foresters Union v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2018) 1 SCC 149], to argue that amongst the classification of gazetted officers coming under Schedule I departments, there should not be a further classification, excluding Teachers. It is pointed out that HSST (Junior)/non gazetted teachers are eligible to apply for the post under Stream 1 and Stream 2. Therefore, excluding the teaching staff of General Education Department from applying under Stream 3, amounts to hostile discrimination under Art.14 of the Constitution. According to him, such a classification is not based on any intelligible differentia, and has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 51 :- Bhudan Choudhry v. State of Bihar (AIR 1955 SC 191), State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotel & Restaurants Association [(2013) 8 SCC 519] and Bhim Singh v. Union of India [(2010) 5 SCC 538]. Finally it was argued that Note 2 to Rule 12 is manifestly arbitrary and he placed reliance on the judgments in Shayara Bano v. Union of India [(2017) 9 SCC 1], Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India [(2018) 11 SCC 1], Cellular Operators Association of India v. TRAI [(2016) 7 SCC 703], Maharashtra Forest Guards and Foresters Union (supra) and B. Manmad Reddy and Others v. Chandra Prakash Reddy and Others [(2010) 3 SCC 314]. The learned counsel also took up the cause of an employee of KPSC in OP (KAT) No. 109/2020 as the applicant's application was also rejected.
16. On behalf of an employee of a Public Sector Undertaking, it was argued that Rule 12 to the extent it excludes employees of Public Sector Undertaking is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
17. The Tribunal separately considered the contentions urged by the respective applicants treating them under different groups. OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 52 :-
18. Group 1 were persons who complained about non inclusion under Stream 3. Their contention was that they have completed their probation in Government service, though they are not part of Government departments specified in Schedule I. The Tribunal held that in so far as the applicants' probation were not declared by the Government, but by the Legislature Secretariat and in the Public Service Commission, they do not form part of either the State service or the Subordinate service.
19. Group 2 consists of employees of Legislature Secretariat, Advocate General's office and KPSC, who applied under Stream 2. The Tribunal found that the employees of the Legislature Secretariat, KPSC and Advocate General's Office are treated as forming part of independent service and cannot be treated as Government departments. To arrive at the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal had placed reliance on the Constitutional debate by Dr.Ambedkar, the constitutional provisions and judgment of the Apex Court in Re Mehersingh Sani and Others [(2010) 13 SCC 586] and it was held that the employees of Legislature Secretariat and KPSC are not employees of the State Government and they are not approved OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 53 :- probationers in Government departments. With reference to the Advocate General's office, it was observed that in so far as the Advocate General is a constitutional authority, the Advocate General's office do not fall within the word 'Government department' and the service of the Advocate General's office is not classified as State service nor as a Subordinate service falling under Schedule I or II of the Kerala Civil Service (CC&A) Rules, 1960.
20. Group 3 were employees of Public Sector Undertakings and Statutory Boards who challenged the 2018 Rules, as amended alleging violation of Art.14 and non inclusion of their category. The Tribunal in fact placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Sing Raghuvanshi [(1975) 1 SCC 421] which dealt with a question relating to formation of Public Corporations and finally held that such employees were not civil servants even though Corporations would still be an "other authority" coming within the definition of State under Art.12 of the Constitution. After having considered the scheme of the enactment, it was observed that the service of KAS has been created after carving out 29 departments from 121 departments of the State and therefore OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 54 :- there is a reasonable classification for giving an opportunity to employees of Government department under Stream 2, and approved probationers having gazetted rank coming under Schedule I departments, under Stream 3. Hence, it was held that 2018 Rules is not vitiated in any manner and it is neither unreasonable nor in violation of Article 14.
21. The teaching staff of General Education Department formed Group IV. They challenged the amendment brought in by the Kerala Administrative Service (Amendment Rules) 2019 by which Note 2 to Rule 12 have been incorporated. As per Note 2, the teaching staff of General Education Department have been excluded from applying under Stream 3. The Tribunal found that when the Government had consciously excluded the teaching staff in the first gazetted post from participating in the selection process, as they do not discharge any administrative duties, the said policy of the Government cannot be interfered exercising the power of judicial review.
22. We have heard the learned senior Government Pleader Sri.Antony Mukkath and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan learned counsel OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 55 :- appearing for KPSC. Learned counsel for KPSC placed before us the judgment of the Apex Court in Hargovind Pant v. Dr.Raghukul Tilak and others [(1979) 3 SCC 458]. In a counter affidavit filed in OP(KAT) No.109/2020 it is stated that the preliminary examination was held on 20/2/2020.
23. The 2018 Rules have been framed by the Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of S.2 of the Public Service Act, 1968. The objectives are specified as under:
"2. Objective:
(a) To build a cadre of public servants as a second line of managerial talent for Government for effective implementation of Government policies and programmes.
(b) To provide opportunities for growth for bright, talented and committed officers in Government Service and prepare them for senior level administrative and managerial positions in public service.
(c) To constitute the feeder category for the recruitment of Indian Administrative Service officers in Kerala Cadre through appointment by promotion from State Civil Service (SCS) category superseding the existing rules in this regard."
24. As already mentioned, the cadre strength at the entry level in KAS has been limited to 10% of the sanctioned strength of 2 nd gazetted post in the departments and equivalent post in the common OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 56 :- categories of posts in all departments as specified in Schedule I. Rule 12 specifies the method of appointment and qualification. There are three streams of selection in the proportion 1:1:1. All the three streams are by way of direct recruitment. Stream 1 relates to general category from open market and Stream 2 from full members or an approved probationer in any "Government department". First gazetted officer or above in departments mentioned in Schedule I have been excluded from Stream 2. Stream 3 are persons who holds first gazetted post in the departments in Schedule I, and who should not have attained the age more than 50 years. In fact, Stream 3 consists of persons who were excluded from Stream 2. An amendment had been brought to Rule 12 by incorporating Note 2 excluding teaching staff from being considered coming under Schedule 1. Note 2 reads as under:
"Note 2:- Teaching staff of General Education Department are not eligible to apply under STREAM 3."
25. Yet another amendment had been brought out in Rule 14(b) where the word 'constitutional bodies' had been deleted. In fact, the contention urged on behalf of some of the petitioners is that initially OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 57 :- the Government intended to permit candidates employed in constitutional bodies also to participate in the selection process. But the same had been specifically excluded by deleting the word 'constitutional bodies'. This argument cannot be accepted as there is no reference to any constitutional bodies in Rule 12. Stream 2 and 3 only refers to Government departments and therefore the rule making authority never intended to include employees of constitutional bodies in the selection process. An apparent mistake was corrected by deleting the words 'constitutional bodies' in Rule 14(b). Therefore, the challenge to the said amendment to that extent cannot be sustained.
26. In Pashupati Nath Sukul (supra), the Apex Court was considering the question, whether Secretary of a State Legislative Assembly is qualified to be appointed as Returning officer in an election held to the Rajya Sabha. After referring to S.3(23) of General Clauses Act, 1897 which defines Government, it was held that the word 'Government' in Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a) of the Constitution and the word 'Government' in the expression "an officer of Government" in S.21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 58 :- should be interpreted liberally so as to include within its scope, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. This judgment may not apply to the factual situation since we are concerned with the question as to whether the Secretariat of State Legislature, KPSC and Advocate General's Office are Government departments or not. Art.187 of the Constitution of India has laid down that the House of Legislature of a State shall have separate Secretarial staff. Art.187(2) further states that the Legislature of a State made by law regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons to the secretarial staff of the House of the Legislature of the State and until such provision is made, sub-Article (3) states that the Governor may after consultation with Speaker of the Legislative Assembly make rules regulating the service conditions of appointment. Similarly, KPSC is a constitutional authority and Article 318 enables the Governor of the State to make regulations in relation to the conditions of service of the members and staff.
27. The Karnataka High Court in Hokrani S.A. (supra), considered an issue regarding the interpretation of the words "officers of the State Government" in Section 8(2) of the Rent Control OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 59 :- Act, 1961. It was held that the said provision should be interpreted or understood to include within its scope all persons appointed to civil posts in the State who are under the administrative control of the Executive, or the Legislature or the Judiciary. That was a case in which the officer concerned was a member of the High Court staff. It was held that he has to be treated as an officer of the State Government under Section 8(2). This judgment also has no application to the facts in issue. All officers who are being paid from the consolidated fund of the State Government are nevertheless officers of the Government for all practical purposes. But, the question to be considered in the cases on hand is whether they are coming under any Government department or not. The view taken by the Karnataka High Court was with reference to a completely different situation and the ratio in that case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.
28. In Hargovind Pant (supra) relied upon by the counsel for petitioners, the Apex Court was considering whether the office of Governor is an independent constitutional office and whether it is under the Government of India. After referring to the judgments in OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 60 :- Pradyat Kumar Bose v. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court [AIR 1956 SC 285] and Baldev Raj Guliani v. Punjab and Haryana High Court [(1976) 4 SCC 201], it was held that:
"It will, therefore, be seen that the employment can be said to be under the Government of India if the holder or incumbent of the employment is under the control of the Government of India vis-a-vis such employment."
It was further held that:
"There are under the Constitution many other high functionaries, such as Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, who do not hold any employment under the Government of India, although they exercise State power. This Court, while examining the constitutional position of a High Court Judge, pointed out in the Union of India v. S.H. Sheth [(1977) 4 SCC 193 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 435 : (1978) 1 SCR 423] that a High Court Judge is not a Government servant:
there is no relationship of employee and employer subsisting between him and the Government."
29. The Government has taken up a contention that employees of constitutional bodies do not form part of Government departments, whereas the contention of the petitioners is that employees of Legislature Secretariat, KPSC and Advocate General's office are all paid salary by the Government and their service OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 61 :- conditions are formulated by the Government and therefore they are Government departments and officers of those Government departments should be permitted to participate in the selection process. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Raja Ram [(1981) 2 SCC 66] considered the question whether a Corporation is a Government department. It was held that:
"A government department has to be an organisation which is not only completely controlled and financed by the Government but has also no identity of its own."
"The Corporation, on the other hand, is an autonomous body capable of acquiring, holding and disposing of property and having the power to contract".
30. In National Textile Corpn. Ltd. v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad [(2011) 12 SCC 695] the Apex Court was considering the question whether the appellant is a Government Department and while negativing the said contention, it was held at paragraphs 23 and 24 as under:-
"23. Thus, government department means something purely fundamental i.e. relating to a particular Government or to the practice of governing a country. It has different wings. However, the expression "Government" may be required to be interpreted in the context used in a particular statute. The expression denotes OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 62 :- the executive and not the legislature.
24. To perform the functions, the Government has its various departments and to facilitate its working, the Government itself may be divided into various sections. To carry out the commercial activities by the State, the corporations have been established by the enactment of statutes and the "power to charter corporations as incidental to or in aid of governmental functions". Such corporations would ex-hypothesis be agencies of the Government."
31. Therefore, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the Legislature Secretariat, KPSC and the Advocate General are all constitutional functionaries, which cannot be disputed. The Constitution itself provides for administration of the Legislative Secretariat and KPSC. None of the employees are under the administrative control of the Government and their probation are not declared by the Government. According to the Government, there are only 121 Government departments and at the time when the case was heard, the learned Government Pleader submitted a list showing that there are only 97 Government departments at present, which do not include any of the aforesaid organizations. Government department essentially means that those are departments formed for the proper functioning of the Government. It is pointed out that employees are selected to the OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 63 :- various posts in the Legislative Secretariat, KPSC and the respective departments of Government through a common entrance test. But, after appointment to different cadres, they come under the administrative control of either Government departments or the constitutional bodies as the case may be. It might be true that the source of selection is the same. But when advices are issued by the KPSC, on the basis of vacancies that are reported by the respective constitutional authorities, once they are appointed to such cadres, they cannot claim parity with employees of other departments. Therefore when the Government, while notifying the special rules for selection had consciously decided to confine Stream 2 to employees of "Government Departments", it apparently excludes employees working in the office of constitutional functionaries.
32. That the Advocate General is a constitutional functionary, is not in dispute. The employees of the Advocate General's office are definitely under the administrative control of the Advocate General. That being the situation, such employees cannot be termed as employees of a Government department. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting their claim.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 64 :-
33. As far as Public Sector Undertakings are concerned, they do not form part of any Government department. Their contention is that non inclusion of employees of Public Sector undertakings amounts to violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. The whole intention of the legislature in framing the aforesaid 2018 Rules, is for the purpose of creating a service known as the KAS and the cadre strength has been carved out from the Government departments mentioned in Schedule I and the selection procedure consists of direct recruitment from open market as well as from Government departments. Providing 1/3rd of the cadre strength to employees of Government departments excluding gazetted officers in the departments mentioned in Schedule I, are matters which are within the legislative competence of the Rule making authority. Similarly Stream 3 only recognizes inclusion of first gazetted officers and above in the departments mentioned in Schedule I, who were excluded from Stream 2. In Pandurangarao v. A. P. Public Service Commission (AIR 1963 SC 268), the Constitution Bench held thus:
"When any impugned rule or statutory provision is OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 65 :- assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group; and the second is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question".
34. There is nothing wrong in the Government formulating a policy to create a service from among the persons who are employed in the Government departments. It is not for the Courts to substitute its wisdom in the place of the administrator. In Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of A.P., [(1990) 2 SCC 707] it was held:-
"12. This Court relying on Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, Himachal Pradesh [(1971) 2 SCC 747: (1972) 1 SCR 940] and State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla [(1985) 3 SCC 169] , held in Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir [1989 Supp (2) SCC 364] as under: (SCC p. 374, para
19) "When a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the constitution and if OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 66 :- not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority.
The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive...."
13. The Special Rules have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India to frame rules is the legislative power. This power under the Constitution has to be exercised by the President or the Governor of a State as the case may be. The High Courts or the Administrative Tribunals cannot issue a mandate to the State Government to legislate under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The courts cannot usurp the functions assigned to the executive under the Constitution and cannot even indirectly require the executive to exercise its rule making power in any manner. The courts cannot assume to itself a supervisory role over the rule making power of the executive under Article 309 of the Constitution of India." In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Ors. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth (AIR 1984 SC 1543), the Supreme Court considered the scope of judicial review in a case of policy decision and held as OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 67 :- under-:
"The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the Sub-ordinate regulation making body. It may be a wise policy, which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purpose of the Act. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is not scope for any interference by the Courts unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation-making power or it being is consistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitation imposed by the Constitution."
In Dwarka Prasad v. Union of India reported in [(2003) 6 SCC 535] it was held :-
"Fixation of quotas or different avenues and ladders for promotion in favour of various categories of posts in feeder cadres based upon the structure and pattern of the Department is a prerogative of the employer, mainly OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 68 :- pertaining to the policy-making field. The relevant considerations in fixing a particular quota for a particular post are various such as the cadre strength in the feeder quota, suitability more or less of the holders in the feeder post, their nature of duties, experience and the channels of promotion available to the holders of posts in the feeder cadres. Most important of them all is the requirement of the promoting authority for manning the post on promotion with suitable candidates. Thus, fixation of quota for various categories of posts in the feeder cadres requires consideration of various relevant factors, a few amongst them have been mentioned for illustration. Mere cadre strength of a particular post in the feeder cadre cannot be a sole criterion or basis to claim parity in the chances of promotion by various holders of posts in feeder categories.
35. When selection is being done from the open market under Stream 1, any other qualified person employed in any other capacity coming within the age limit has the opportunity to apply and compete. Therefore, there is no exclusion of any category. 1/3 rd of the cadre strength is set apart for selection through open channel and any person coming within the age limit can apply. But when it comes to Stream 2 and Stream 3, it is confined to employees of the Government departments. Necessarily the Government can frame a policy to bring in persons who are eligible from various Government OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 69 :- departments to be treated as part of KAS. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in confining the selection to employees of the Government departments, and hence the contention of employees of public sector undertakings alleging violation of Article 14, has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal.
36. Now coming to the contention of the HSS teachers who were excluded from applying under Stream 3, we have to consider whether there is any rationale in excluding them by incorporating Note 2. It is true that teaching staff in the Education Department of the Government is permitted to participate in the selection process under Stream 2. Being gazetted officers, HSS teachers come under Stream 3, but still they are excluded. It is settled law and as held in a long line of judgments cited before us that the classification should be based on an intelligible differentia and the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. The first argument of the petitioners is that though classification of departments specified under Schedule I is justified under Stream 2, there should not be a further classification from among the departments specified under OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 70 :- Schedule I and exclude the teachers having gazetted rank and above from being part of Stream 3. Learned counsel placed reliance on several judgments of the Apex Court, of which a few are extracted hereunder.
37. In State of J&K (supra), the Constitution bench held as under:
"Classification, therefore, must be truly founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved."
"Judicial scrutiny can therefore extend only to the consideration whether the classification rests on a reasonable basis and whether it bears nexus with the object in view. It cannot extend to embarking upon a nice or mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification, for were such an inquiry permissible it would be open to the Courts to substitute their own judgment for that of the legislature or the Rule-making authority on the need to classify or the desirability of achieving a particular object."
38. In E.V. Chinnaiah (supra), the Constitution Bench held thus:
"Legal constitutional policy adumbrated in a statute must OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 71 :- answer the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. Classification whether permissible or not must be judged on the touchstone of the object sought to be achieved. If the object of reservation is to take affirmative action in favour of a class which is socially, educationally and economically backward, the State's jurisdiction while exercising its executive or legislative function is to decide as to what extent reservation should be made for them either in public service or for obtaining admission in educational institutions. In our opinion, such a class cannot be subdivided so as to give more preference to a minuscule proportion of the Scheduled Castes in preference to other members of the same class."
39. In Union of India (supra ), the Apex Court revisited the fundamental principles on classification in the matter relating to grant of exemption from payment of excise duty and held as under:
"When the exemption is granted to a particular class of persons, then the benefit thereof is to be extended to all similarly situated persons. The notification has to apply to the entire class and the Government cannot create sub-classification thereby excluding one sub-category, even when both the sub-categories are of same genus. If that is done, it would be considered as violating the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, judicial review of such notifications is permissible in order to undertake the scrutiny as to whether the notification results in invidious discrimination between two persons though they belong to the same class."
40. In Maharashtra Forest Guards & Foresters Union OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 72 :- (supra), the Apex Court was considering the vires of a Rule which stipulated that for promotion to the post of Forester, one among the members of the feeder category should be from the common merit list on the basis of result of the "Limited Departmental Competitive Examination". For appearing in the examination, the candidates should have (a) completed five years of regular service as Forest Guard in the Forest Department; and (b) possess a degree of a statutory university or any other qualification declared by the Government to be equivalent thereto. The question considered was whether the stipulation that the candidate should be a graduate to participate in LDCE is discriminatory or not. It was held thus:
"The LDCE is meant for selection for promotion from the entire lot of Forest Guards irrespective of seniority but subject to minimum five years of service. In that situation, introducing an additional restriction of graduation for participation in LDCE without there being any quota reserved for graduates will be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since it creates a class within a class. The merit of the 25% cannot be prejudged by a sub-classification. It violates the equality and equal opportunity guarantees. The Forest Guards, irrespective of educational qualifications, having formed one class for the purpose of participation in LDCE, a further classification between graduates and non-graduates for OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 73 :- participating in LDCE is unreasonable. It is a case of equals being treated unequally."
41. In B. Manmad Reddy (supra), the Apex Court held as under:
"That leaves us with the question whether any imbalance among those eligible for appointment against Class II Category 1 posts coming from different sources and categories would itself justify a classification like the one made in Note 6. Our answer is in the negative. There is no gainsaying that classification must rest on a reasonable and intelligible basis and the same must bear a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute. By its very nature classification can and is often fraught with the danger of resulting in artificial inequalities which make it necessary to subject the power to classify to restraints lest the guarantee of equality becomes illusory on account of classifications being fanciful instead of fair, intelligible or reasonable."
42. The second argument is that Note 2 to Rule 12 is irrational and discriminatory, not based on any intelligible differentia between persons holding first gazetted post in Schedule I departments and teachers in Education department, and that there is no material available to indicate that teachers do not have any administrative experience. It also argued that senior teachers alone are discriminated and found to be ineligible under Stream 3, whereas OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 74 :- junior level teachers are permitted to participate in the selection process under Stream 2. Budhan Choudhry (supra) was one of the earliest decisions that reiterated the principle underlying reasonable classification. It was held thus:
"It is now well established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well established by the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure."
43. Finally it is argued that Note 2 to Rule 12 is manifestly arbitrary and reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Shayara Bano (supra) wherein it is held that:
"It will be noticed that a Constitution Bench of this Court in OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 75 :- Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India stated that it was settled law that subordinate legislation can be challenged on any of the grounds available for challenge against plenary legislation. This being the case, there is no rational distinction between the two types of legislation when it comes to this ground of challenge under Article 14. The test of manifest arbitrariness, therefore, as laid down in the aforesaid judgments would apply to invalidate legislation as well as subordinate legislation under Article 14. Manifest arbitrariness, therefore, must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. We are, therefore, of the view that arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness as pointed out by us above would apply to negate legislation as well under Article 14."
44. The above judgment was followed in Nikesh Tarachand Shah (supra) and it is held as under:
"At this stage, it is important to advert to the tests for the violation of Article 14, both in its discriminatory aspect and its "manifestly arbitrary" aspect. It is settled by a catena of cases that Article 14 permits classification, provided such classification bears a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved."
45. The principle underlying the judgments aforecited are well settled. The main contention urged by the learned Government OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 76 :- Pleader is that 10% cadre strength of KAS had been carved out from the gazetted post coming under Schedule I. Though teachers form part of the General Education Department, in so far as they have no administrative experience, they form a different class and therefore the Government was justified in excluding them by issuing Note 2. Though not part of records in the above cases, in a counter filed in OA No.2398/2019, in one among the case considered by the Tribunal, the following contention had been urged:
"16.It is submitted that the HSST of General Education Department is recruitment and appointed for the purpose of teaching the students of the Higher Secondary level in the State. They are not supposed to perform any administrative or managerial positions in public service except for a few duties to be performed in the post of Principal at the fag end of their career. The recruitment to Stream III was essentially meant to be from the 1st gazette posts of the 29 departments and common category listed in schedule I who carries the responsibility of supervising the administration and managerial responsibilities entrusted by the Government and who have enough experience in the administration matters. The KAS aims to create a blend of talent and experience in the middle level administration of the State. The Stream III recruitment is meant to absorb those personnel meaning the administrative as well as managerial responsibilities right OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 77 :- from the beginning of their employment and have enough experience in the said matter. The HSST post being a teaching post and having no such experience is clearly out of the ambit of the criteria which the Government has envisaged for the Stream III while constituting the service. Further, 2 nd gazetted post of the Principals in Higher Secondary Schools have not been listed as part of Schedule lI of KAS Special Rules. It will be incongruous to post a KAS officer as Principal of a Higher Secondary School, considering the objectives and aims of the constitution of service."
46. But it is an admitted fact that teachers who are working under the General Education Department are permitted to participate in the selection process under Stream 2. If the teachers as a class is excluded, there is some rationale in the object to be achieved. But when the teachers are permitted to participate in the selection process under Stream 2, there is no reason to deprive such teachers who are in gazetted rank coming under Stream 3, from participating in the selection process. Of course, persons coming under Schedule I are separately classified under Stream 3 taking into account the fact that the cadre strength have been carved out from the cadre of Stream 3. There might be justification in confining Stream 3 to such departments from where the cadre is created. But the reason stated to OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 78 :- avoid teachers coming under gazetted rank is that they do not have administrative experience. But teachers as a whole is not excluded. They are permitted to participate under stream 2. If lack of administrative experience is the criteria for excluding HSS teachers, there is no rationale in permitting non gazetted teachers to participate in the selection under Stream 2. Hence, we do not find any valid reason to classify them separately and exclude them under Stream 3. Apparently the classification is not based on any intelligible differentia, and hence such a classification violates Art.14 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be struck down. In Manomoy Ganguly v. Union of India, [(2018) 18 SCC 83] it was held:-
"30. We are also one with Mr Venugopal about the scope of judicial review in such matters. The Court, in exercise of judicial review, is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which the orders are made so long as those findings are reasonable and supported by evidence. The Court does not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature or executive or their agents as to matters within the province of either. The Court does not supplant "the feel of the expert" by its own review. Undoubtedly, this Court is not sitting as an appellate authority over the decision taken in making such appointments and is not supposed to substitute its view for that of the respondent authorities. OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 79 :- However, scope of judicial review certainly extends to examining the decision-making process and to see as to whether appropriate process, legally permissible, has been undertaken while taking the decision. While undertaking this examination, the Court can deliberate and ensure that all relevant factors are taken into consideration and, correspondingly, no irrelevant considerations have crept in in the decision-making process. These are, among others, the accepted norms of judicial review. After all, discretionary powers conferred on the administration cannot be unguided. No doubt, in such matters, the discretion exercised by the authorities is to be generally accepted. This does not, however, mean that there is no control over discretion of the administration. All powers have legal limits. There is distinction between decision-making process and the merit of the decision. Whereas in the former, the Court applies the standard of judicial review, in the latter, it enters into the merits of the matter.
31. In the leading decision in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans, (1982) 1 WLR 1155 : (1982) 3 All ER 141 (HL)] , Lord Hailsham stated: (All ER p. 144a) "... The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches, on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court."
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 80 :-
47. We are of the view that the exclusion of HSS Teachers in the Gazetted rank from consideration under Stream III is illegal, irrational and arbitrary and violates Art.14 of the Constitution of India.
In the result:
(i) OP(KAT) No.85/2020 is allowed. We set aside the order in OA No.2338/2019 and the OA is allowed as under:
Note 2 to Rule 12 of the 2018 Rules, is declared to be unconstitutional, being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is declared that HSS Teachers coming under Stream 3 are entitled to participate in the selection process in terms of the 2018 Rules.
(ii) OP (KAT) Nos.71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 83, 106, 109 & 123/2020 are dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
GOPINATH P. Rp JUDGE OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 81 :- APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 71/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.(EKM) NO.23/2020 WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO A8 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (ADDITIONAL BENCH AT ERNAKULAM).
EXHIBIT P1 (A1) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO.AD.A146235/19(II) DATED 8.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (A2) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF G.O. (P) NO.12/2017/P&ARD DATED 29.12.2017. EXHIBIT P1 (A3) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.4/2019 P&ARD DATED 11.7.2019.
EXHIBIT P1 (A4) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 1.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR SELECTION TO THE KAS UNDER STREAM I, STREAM 2 AND STREAM 3 AS CATEGORY NOS.186/2019 TO 188/2019.
EXHIBIT P1 (A5) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A.R.12- 1/229/2019/P&ARD DATED 3.12.2019 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P1 (A6) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE WEB PAGE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P1 (A7) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.3313/INSP.1/2019/LAW DATED 25.3.2019 ISSUED BY LAW (INSPECTION) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 82 :- EXHIBIT P1 (A8) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.A1.38994/2018 DATED 21.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.(EKM) NO.23/2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.2.2020 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.(EKM) NO.23/2020.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE SERVICE RULES, 1988.
EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.03.1994 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN CMP NO.318/1994 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.886/1992. OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 83 :- APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 75/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE (A1) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION G.O(P) NO. 12/2017/P AND ARD DATED 29-12-2017 ANNEXURE (A2) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION G.O(P) NO. 4/2019/P AND ARD DATED 11-07-2019 ANNEXURE (A3) TRUE COPY OF THE SECREEN SHOT OF THE REJECTION MESSAGE OF THE FIRST APPLICANT DISPLAYED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS) NO. 203/2016 (5)/FIN. DATED 23- 05-2016 ANNEXURE R1(A) PHOTO COPY OF THE KERALA STATE LEGISLATIVE SECRETARIAT RULES, 1979 (GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION NO. 1607/LA 12/79/DATED 3-7--1979 ANNEXURE R1(B) PHOTO COPY OF THE KERALA STATE LEGISLATIVE SECRETARIAT (CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES 1982 GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION NO. 1607/LA/12/79(1) DATED 18-05-1982 ANNEXURE MA1) TRUE COPY OF THE U.O NOTE NO.
78533/ED4/B1/GAD DATED 16-07-1981 ANNEXURE MA1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.
G.O (P) NO. 84/83/DD DATED TRIVANDRUM 27-12-1983 EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-02-2020 IN O.A NO. 2567/2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A NO. 2567/2019 WITH ANNEXURE -A1 TO A4 OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 84 :- EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADOPTION MEMO FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ADOPTING THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED IN O.A NO. 48/2020 ALONG WITH O.A NO. 2567/2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE M.A NO. 153/2020 IN O.A NO. 2567/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 85 :- APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 76/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2020 IN OA NO.187/2020 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.2567/2019 WITH ANNEXURE A1 TO A3 EXHIBIT P2(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION GO(P)NO.4/2019/P AND ARD DATED 11.07.2019 EXHIBIT P2(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION GO(P) NO.4/2019/P & ARD DATED 11.07.2019 EXHIBIT P2(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE REJECTION MESSAGE OF THE FIRST APPLICATION DISPLAYED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADOPTION MEMO FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ADOPTING THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED IN OA NO.48/2020 ALONG WITH OA NO.187/2020 EXHIBIT P3(R1(A) PHOTO COPY OF THE KERALA STATE LEGISLATIVE SECRETARIAT RULES, 1979(GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION NO.1607/LA12/79/ DATED 3.7.1979 EXHIBIT P3(R1(B) PHOTO COPY OF THE KERALA STATE LEGISLATIVE SECRETARIAT(CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES 1982 GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION NO.1607/LA/12/79(1) DATED 18.05.1982 OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 86 :- APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 77/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.2.2020 IN OA NO 188/2020 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO 188/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 (A1) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION GO (P) NO 12/2017/P & ARD DATED 19.12.2017 EXHIBIT P2 (A2) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION GO (P) NO 4/2019/P & ARD DATED 11.7.2019 EXHIBIT P2 (A3) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE REJECTION MESSAGE OF THE 3RD APPLICANT DISPLAYED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 (A4) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREN SHOT OF THE REJECTION MESSAGE OF THE 4TH APPLICANT DISPLAYED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 (A5) TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO AR 12 1/229/2019/P & ARD DATED 3.12.2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILE DIN OA NO 188/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANTS IN OS NO 188/2020 OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 87 :- APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 78/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/02/2020 IN O.A.NO.149/2020.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.149/2020.
EXHIBIT P2 (A1) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION G.O. (P)NO.12/2017/P&ARD DATED 29/12/2017.
EXHIBIT P2 (A2) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION G.O.(P) NO.4/2019/P&ARD DATED 11/07/2019.
EXHIBIT P2(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE REJECTION MESSAGE OF THE 1ST APPLICANT DISPLAYED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 (A3(A)) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE REJECTION MESSAGE OF THE 2ND APPLICANT DISPLAYED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 (A3(B)) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE REJECTION MESSAGE OF THE 3RD APPLICANT DISPLAYED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADOPTION MEMO FILED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT ADOPTING THE REPLY
STATEMENT FILED IN O.A.NO.2355/2019
ALONG WIT O.A.149/2020.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases
-: 88 :-
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 80/2020
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION
NO.(EKM)NO.78/2020 WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO A9 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM(ADDITIONAL BENCH AT ERNAKULAM).
EXHIBIT P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO.AD.A1 46115/19(i) DATED 08.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE 1ST APPLICANT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A1)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO. AD.A1 46276/19(ii) DATED 08.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (A1)(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO. AD.A1 46687/19(i) DATED 11.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE 3RD APPLICANT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (A2) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF G.O(P) NO.12/2017/P & ARD DATED 29.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF G.O(P) NO.4/2019/P AND ARD DATED 11.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 01.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR SELECTION TO THE KAS UNDER STREAM I, STREAM 2 AND STREAM 3 AS CATEGORY NOS.186/2019 TO 188/2019.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 89 :- EXHIBIT P1 (A5) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A.4. 12- 1/229/2019/P AND ARD DATED 03.12.2019 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P1 (A6) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE WEB PAGE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P1(A6)(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE WEB PAGE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P1(A6)(b) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE WEB PAGE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE 3RD APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P1 (A7) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.3313/INSP.1/2019/LAW DATED 25.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE LAW (INSPECTION) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P1(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.
AD.A1.38994/2018 DATED 21.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL KERALA.
EXHIBIT P1(A9) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2020 IN OA (EKM) NO.23/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR JOIN TOGETHER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2020 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.(EKM) NO.78/2020.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 90 :- APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 83/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORGINAL APPLICATION NO.(EKM) NO.97/2020 WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO A9 FILED BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPUR(ADDITIONAL BENCH AT ERNAKULM) EXHIBIT P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO.AD A1 50637/2019 (II) DATED 02.12.2019 ISSUED TO 1ST APPLICANT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A1)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO.AD.B3-46874/2019(II) DATED 16.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A1)(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO.AD.A1-47973/2019(A)(II) DATED 19.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE 4TH APPLICANT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A1)(C) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO.AD.A1-46905/2019(II) DATED 19.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE 4TH APPLICANT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A1)(D) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO.AD.A1-50341/2019(II) DATED 02.12.2019 ISSUED TO THE 5TH APPLICANT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A1)(E) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO.AD.A1-50842/2019(II) DATED 02.12.2019 ISSUED TO THE 6TH APPLICANT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 91 :- EXHIBIT P1(A1)(F) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO.AD.A1-47973/2019(II) DATED 20.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE 7TH APPLICANT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A1)(G) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO.AD.A1-51522/2019(II) DATED 03.12.2019 ISSUED TO THE 8TH APPLICANT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A1)(H) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO.AD.A1-50846/2019(II) DATED 02.12.2019 ISSUED TO THE 9TH APPLICANT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A1)(I) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO.AD.A1-46906/2019(II) DATED 12.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE 10TH APPLICANT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF G.O(P)NO.12/2017/P& ARD DATED 29.12.2017 EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.4/2019/P AND ARD DATED 11.07.2019 EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 1.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR SELECTION TO THE KAS UNDER STREAM I, STEAM 2 AND STREAM 3 AS CATEGORY NOS.186/2019 TO 188/2019 EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A.R. 12-
1/229/2019/P& ARD DATED 03.12.2019 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION EXHIBIT P1(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE WEB PAGE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST APPLICANT OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 92 :- EXHIBIT P1(A6)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE WEB PAGE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND APPLICANT EXHIBIT P1(A6)(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE WEB PAGE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE 3RD APPLICANT EXHIBIT P1(A6)(C) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE WEB PAGE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE 4TH APPLICANT EXHIBIT P1(A6)(D) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE WEB PAGE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE 5TH APPLICANT EXHIBIT P1(A6)(E) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE WEB PAGE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE 6TH APPLICANT EXHIBIT P1(A6)(F) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE WEB PAGE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE 7TH APPLICANT EXHIBIT P1(A6)(G) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE WEB PAGE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE 8TH APPLICANT EXHIBIT P1(A6)(H) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE WEB PAGE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE 9TH APPLICANT OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 93 :- EXHIBIT P1(A6)(I) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DISPLAYED ON THE WEB PAGE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE 10TH APPLICANT EXHIBIT P1(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.3313/INSP.1/2019/LAW DATED 25.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE LAW (INSPECTION) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA EXHIBIT P1(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.A1.38994/2018 DATED 21.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA EXHIBIT P1(A9) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 08.01.2020 IN OA(EKM)NO.23/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.(EKM).NO.97/2020 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2020 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.(EKM) NO.97/2020 OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 94 :- APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 85/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 2338 OF 2019 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P1 (A1) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE DATED 01.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P1 (A2) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AD C4/20023/HSE/07 DATED 27.10.2009 BY THE DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P1 (A3) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AD.
B3/4192/09 DATED 04.05.2009 BY THE DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P1 (A4) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AD.
B6/28958/HSE/10, DATED 28.05.2012 BY THE DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P1 (A5) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING CONVENED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND HELD ON 17.08.2017.
EXHIBIT P1 (A6) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 13.12.2017 BY THE GOVERNMENT SECRETARY LEVEL COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P1 (A7) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF G.O. (P) NO. 12/2017/P & ARD, DATED 29.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P1 (A8) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. AV(2) 654/17/GW/DUMMY DATED 14.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P1 (A9) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (P) NO 4/2019/P & ARD, DATED 11.07.2019.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 95 :- EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADOPTION MEMO FIELD BY THE RESPONDENT IN OA NO. 2355/2019 TO 2338 OF 2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO. 2338 OF 2019 DATED 14.02.2020.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 96 :- APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 106/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.198 OF 2020 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE DATED 01/11/2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAIL REGARDING THE CONFIRMATION IS PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FILE NO.EDP-1/50020/2018/KPSC.
EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 1ST APPLICANT DATED 02/12/2019.
EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 25/11/2019 TO THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION FOR WRITING THE EXAMINATION SUBMITTED ON 11/12/2019.
EXHIBIT P1(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION DETAILS AS SHOWN IN THE PROFILE PAGE OF THE 1ST APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P1(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 23/12/2019.
EXHIBIT P1(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION DETAILS OF THE 2ND APPLICANT DATED 16/01/2020.
EXHIBIT P1(A9) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 13/11/2019.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 97 :- EXHIBIT P1(A10) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR KAS STREAM - 2 ISSUED ON 30/11/2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (A11) TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION TO WRITE KAS OFFICER JUNIOR TIME SCALE TRAINEE IN STREAM - 2 ON 08/12/2019 GIVEN BY THE 2ND PETITIONER AND ACCEPTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A12) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 16/01/2020.
EXHIBIT P1(A13) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 3RD APPLICANT DATED 30/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P1(A14) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 25/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P1(A15) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER FOR KAS STREAM-2 ISSUED ON 30/11/2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A16) TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION TO WRITE KAS OFFICER JUNIOR TIME SCALE TRAINEE IN STREAM - 2 ON 06/12/2019 GIVEN BY THE 3RD PETITIONER AND ACCEPTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A17) TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P1(A18) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 4TH APPLICANT DATED 29/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P1(A19) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 98 :- EXHIBIT P1(A20) TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION TO WRITE KAS OFFICER JUNIOR TIME SCALE TRAINEE IN STREAM 1 & 2 ON 08/12/2019 GIVEN BY THE 4TH PETITIONER AND ACCEPTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A21) TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION DETAILS FOR STREAM - 2 IN THE PROFILE PAGE OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P1(A22) TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION SUBMITTED BY 4TH PETITIONER FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXHIBIT P1 (A21) TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P1 (A23) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 5TH APPLICANT DATED 28/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P1 (A24) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT ON 25/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P1 (A25) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER FOR KAS STREAM - 2 DATED 30/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P1 (A26) TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P1 (A27) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 6TH APPLICANT DATED 28/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P1 (A28) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT ON 26/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P1 (A29) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IS TO BE PRODUCED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER FOR KAS STREAM - 2 DATED 30/11/2019.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 99 :- EXHIBIT P1 (A30) TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION ON 06/12/2019 GIVEN BY THE 6TH PETITIONER TO WRITE KAS OFFICER JUNIOR TIME SCALE AND ACCEPTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (A31) TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION DETAILS FOR STREAM - 2 IN THE PROFILE PAGE OF THE 6TH APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P1 (A32) TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION SUBMITTED ON 17/01/2020 FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXHIBIT P1 (A31) TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 6TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P1 (A33) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 7TH APPLICANT DATED 29/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P1 (A34) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT ON 28/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P1 (A35) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER FOR KAS STREAM - 2, DATED 28/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P1 (A36) TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION DETAILS FOR STREAM - 2 IN THE PROFILE PAGE OF THE 7TH APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P1 (A37) TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 15/01/2020 FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXHIBIT P1(A36) TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 7TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P1 (A38) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE 8TH APPLICANT DATED 13/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P1 (A39) TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION ON 07/12/2019 ISSUED TO 8TH PETITIONER TO WRITE KAS OFFICER JUNIOR TIME SCALE RECEIVED SAME BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 100 :- EXHIBIT P1 (A40) TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION DETAILS FOR STREAM - 2 IN THE PROFILE PAGE OF THE 8TH APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P1 (A41) TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 17/01/2020 FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE SAME TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO.198 OF 2020, DATED 14/02/2020.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 101 :- APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 109/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.2417/2019 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES EXHIBIT P1 (A1) TRUE COPY OF SRO NO.861/2017 G.O(P) NO.12/2017/P AND ARD, DATED 29.12.2017 EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING CONVENED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND HELD ON 17.08.2017 EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 13.12.2017 BY THE GOVERNMENT SECRETARY LEVEL COMMITTEE EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AV(2) 654/17/GW/DUMMY, DATED 14.11.2018 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.4/2019/P AND ARD, DATED 11.07.2019 EXHIBIT P1(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE DATED 01.11.2019 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1 (A7) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.11.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPIES OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WITH ANNEXURES A8 TO A11 EXHIBIT P2 (A8) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AR12-
1/220/2019/P AND ARD, DATED 21.11.2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 102 :- EXHIBIT P2(A9) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GR1A(30 205408/2019/GW DATED 20.11.2019 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH EX-DEED COPY EXHIBIT P2(A10) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION S OF SANEESH SAMAD DATED 2.12.2019 WITH SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2(A11) TRUE COPY OF NEWS PUBLISHED IN THOZHIL VEEDHI EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADOPTION MEMO FILED IN OA NO.2417 OF 2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ODER OF THE HON'BLE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO.2417 OF 2019 DATED 14.02.2020 OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 103 :- APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 123/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA 2287 OF 2019, WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE CABINET DECISION OF THE MEETING HELD ON 22.10.2016.
EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.1/2017/P&ARD DATED 04.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.12/2017/P&ARD DATED 29.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.07.2019 FILED BY THE ENGINEERS FEDERATION OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY (EFKWA) TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.07.2019 FILED BY THE ENGINEERS FEDERATION OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY (EFKWA) TO THE SECRETARY, P&ARD.
EXHIBIT P1(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.07.2019 FILED BY THE ENGINEERS FEDERATION OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY (EFKWA) TO THE HON.MINISTER FOR WATER RESOURCES.
EXHIBIT P1(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.07.2019 FILED BY THE ENGINEERS FEDERATION OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY (EFKWA) TO THE ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 104 :- EXHIBIT P1(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.12.2018 FILED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY OFFICERS (AKWAO) TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P1(A9) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.12.2018 FILED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY OFFICERS (AKWAO) TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR WATER RESOURCES.
EXHIBIT P1(A10) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.12.2018 FILED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY OFFICERS (AKWAO) TO THE ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A11) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.4/2019/P&ARD DATED 11.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A12) TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 11.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A13) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY.
EXHIBIT P1(A14) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY TO LA INTERPELLATION NO.3491 ON 20.06.2019.
EXHIBIT P1(A15) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY KPSC FOR CATEGORY NO.186/2019- 188/2019 FOR THE POST OF KAS OFFICER (JUNIOR TIME SCALE).
OP(KAT) No.71/2020 & conn.cases -: 105 :- EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, DATED 14.02.2020, IN OA 2287/2019, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES.