Madras High Court
The District Collector vs K. Govindappa & Another [(2009) 1 Scc
Bench: P.N. Prakash, R. Hemalatha
W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON 26.07.2022
DELIVERED ON 17.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
W.A. (MD) Nos. 687,688,775 & 776 of 2022
&
C.M.P. (MD) Nos.5774, 5776, 6594 and 6596 of 2022
W.A. (MD) No.687 of 2022:
1 The District Collector
Madurai District
Madurai
2 The Personal Assistant to the District Collector
(Development Section)
Collectorate
Madurai, Madurai District
3 The Commissioner
Panchayat Union
Usilampatti Panchayat Union
Madurai District Appellants
v
P. Ramu Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022
W.A. (MD) No.688 of 2022:
1 The District Collector
Madurai District
Madurai
2 The Union Chairman
Panchayat Union
Usilampatti Panchayat
Usilampatti
Madurai District Appellants
v
1 R. Alagumalai
2 P. Ramu Respondents
W.A. (MD) No.775 of 2022:
P. Ramu Appellant
v
1 The District Collector
Madurai District
Madurai
2 The Personal Assistant to the District Collector
(Development Section)
Collectorate
Madurai, Madurai District
3 The Commissioner
Panchayat Union
Usilampatti Panchayat Union
Madurai District Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022
W.A. (MD) No.776 of 2022:
P. Ramu Appellant
v
1 R. Alagumalai
2 The District Collector
Collectorate
Madurai
Madurai District
3 The Union Chairman
Panchayat Union
Usilampatti Panchayat
Usilampatti
Madurai District Respondents
Prayer in W.A. (MD) No. 687 of 2022:
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set aside
the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.P. (MD) No.21125 of 2015.
Prayer in W.A. (MD) No. 688 of 2022 :
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set aside
the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.P. (MD) No.1552 of 2016.
Prayer in W.A. (MD) No. 775 of 2022 :
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set aside
the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.P. (MD) No.21125 of 2015.
Prayer in W.A. (MD) No. 776 of 2022 :
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set aside
the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.P. (MD) No.1552 of 2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3
W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022
For appellants in Mr. Veera Kathiravan
W.A. (MD) Nos.687 & 688/2022 Addl. Adv. General
for Mr. A.K. Manikkam
Special Government Pleader
For respondent in
W.A. (MD) No.687/2022
and Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy
For R2 in W.A. (MD) No.688/2022
For R1 in W.A. (MD) No.688/2022 Mr. T. Arul
for Mr. M.R. Sreenivasan
-------
For appellant in Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy
W.A.(MD) Nos.775 & 776/2022
For respondents in
W.A.(MD) Nos.775/2022 and Mr. Veera Kathiravan
RR 2 & 3 in for Mr. A.K. Manikkam
W.A. (MD) No.776/2022 Spl. Govt. Pleader
For R1 in Mr. T. Arul
W.A. (MD) No.776/2022 for M.R. Sreenivasan
COMMON JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2 The instant four intra-Court appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 16.02.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.21125 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022 2015 and W.P.(MD) No.1552 of 2016 and hence, they are considered and decided by this common judgment.
3 For the sake of convenience, the private parties and official parties in these cases are referred to by their names and designations respectively.
4 Alagumalai, the first respondent in W.A. (MD) Nos.688 and 776 of 2022, aggrieved by the non-implementation of the directions issued in the order dated 16.02.2022 in W.P. (MD) No.1552 of 2016 filed by him, filed a contempt petition being Cont.Petition (MD) No. 789 of 2022 against the officials. When the intra-Court appeals being W.A. (MD) Nos.687 & 688 of 2022 came up for hearing on 19.07.2022, this Court granted interim stay of the common order dated 16.02.2022. In view of the controversy regarding the continuation of the employment of Ramu (the sole respondent in W.A.(MD) No.687 of 2022 and the second respondent in W.A.(MD) No.688 and also the appellant in W.A. (MD) Nos.775 and 776 of 2022), all the four intra-Court appeals were taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.
5 The facts leading to the culmination of the common order dated 16.02.2022 are as follows:
5.1 The Commissioner, Usilampatti Panchayat Union (for brevity “the Commissioner”) initially appointed one Krishnan as Jeep driver on 20.08.2008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022 The said Krishnan died while in service on 28.06.2014. He belonged to general category. Upon his demise, the Commissioner addressed the District Collector, Madurai, seeking permission to appoint a new jeep driver by the Appointment Committee after getting the list of registered names from the employment exchange.
5.2 The District Collectorate, Madurai, vide communication dated 07.10.2014, permitted the Commissioner to fill up the post of jeep driver after getting names from the district employment exchange and following the procedure of communal rotation and reservation. The Commissioner was also informed that the District Collector, Madurai, had received a complaint that while making the appointment, proper legal procedure is not followed and hence, the Commissioner was advised to strictly adhere to the procedure.
5.3 Followed by the said communication, the Personal Assistant (Development) to the District Collector, Madurai, vide memorandum dated 13.11.2014, informed the Commissioner that consequent on the death of the earlier jeep driver, who belonged to the general category, the resultant vacancy should go to a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category (on priority basis for Arundhathiyinar) and therefore, he was requested to follow the communal roster while filling up the post.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022 5.4 The Commissioner, vide proceedings dated 01.12.2014, appointed Ramu as jeep driver for the Chairman, Panchayat Union, after getting names in the employment exchange and after getting the approval of the Appointment Committee. A copy of the said proceedings was marked to the District Collector, Madurai.
5.5 However, the District Collector, Madurai, by proceedings dated 20.01.2015, cancelled the appointment so made, on the following grounds:
a) Communal roster not followed;
b) Appointment Committee was not constituted and the appointment was unilaterally made; and
c) the consent of the Inspector of Panchayats (District Collector) was not obtained.
5.6 While so, Usilampatti Panchayat Union passed a resolution dated 08.04.2015, seeking ratification of the appointment of Ramu as jeep driver. However, the District Collectorate, Madurai, vide proceedings dated 20.03.2015, refused to ratify the said appointment and insisted that the vacancy should have gone to Scheduled Caste (Arudhathiyinar) on priority basis and if no one was available, then, the vacancy ought to have been filled up by appointing a candidate belonging to SC (General).
5.7 When these proceedings were communicated to Ramu, he moved this Court by filing W.P.(MD) No.21125 of 2015 and challenged the communication https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022 dated 20.03.2015 and 20.11.2015 addressed by the Personal Assistant (Development) to the District Collector, Madurai, rejecting the request for ratification, besides seeking a direction for approval of his appointment as jeep driver effective 16.09.2015.
5.8 When W.P. (MD) No.21125 of 2015 came up for hearing on 27.11.2015, a learned Single Judge passed the following order in W.P. (MD) 21125 of 2015:-
“Post on 30/11/2015 for orders, before admission the Commissioner, Usilampatti Panchayat Union is directed to produce the roster book relating to the Jeep Driver.” 5.9 Subsequently, when the matter again came up on 01.12.2015, an order was passed in MP (MD) No.2 of 2015 which is as follows:-
“There shall be an order of interim stay. Since the petitioner is still in service.” 5.10 However, even when these proceedings were pending, on the basis of the directive issued by the District Collector, Madurai, advertisements were given in two Tamil newspapers inviting applications for the post of jeep driver from candidates who belong to Scheduled Caste, with priority to Aundhathiyinar Community. These advertisements appeared in Tamil Chudar and Dhina Boomi newspapers on 28.04.2015 and 29.04.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022 5.11 While so, Alagumalai also gave a representation dated 27.04.2015 to the National SC/ST Commission stating that he belongs to Scheduled Caste (Arundhathiyinar) community and that he was having a heavy duty licence for driving vehicle, yet, he was not given the post of driver.
5.12 The said Alagumalai also sent a complaint to the Chief Minister’s Grievance Cell about his non-appointment. However, he received a reply from the Chief Minister's Cell stating that pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.04.2015, the applicants were asked to appear for an interview on 06.05.2015 and that he (Alugumalai) did not participate in the interview.
5.13 Aggrieved, Alagumalai addressed a representation to the District Collector, Madurai, on 27.05.2015 stating that pursuant to the advertisement, he had sent his application, however, there was no communication regarding the date on which the interview was to be conducted and therefore, it cannot be said that he did not participate in the interview. He also sought a query under the Right to Information Act, for which, the Usilampatti Panchayat Union replied that there was only one person who had applied for the post and no candidate in SC Arundhathiyinar community participated in the interview and no other person belonging to other community was appointed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022 5.14 The Usilampatti Panchayat Union once again addressed a letter to the District Collector, Madurai, stating that for filling up the post of jeep driver, non- availability certificate was obtained from the employment exchange and even after giving advertisement in two newspapers, only one person applied and as he was not qualified, the post was not filled up and that in view of the fact as no SC (Arudhathiyinar) candidate is available, they may be given appropriate advice regarding the next stage of proceedings.
5.15 To be noted, the manner in which the Usilampatti Panchayat Union was functioning was highly questionable. While the Usilampatti Panchayat Union, by their letter dated 24.04.2015 sent to the Public Relations Officer, Madurai, for advertising for the post of jeep driver in the newspaper, had requested that the interview shall be conducted on 06.05.2015, in the advertisement which was released to the Press by the Public Relations Officer, no such detail regarding interview was mentioned. On the contrary, it was stated that qualified persons shall apply on or before 06.05.2015 (before 5.45 p.m.). Therefore, the Usilampatty Panchayat Union was clearly wrong in stating that Alagumalai did not participate in the interview. However, admittedly, Alagumalai had studied only upto 8th Std. and he was not educationally qualified since a pass in the 10th Std. is the requirement for the said post.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022 5.16 Curiously, the Usilampatti Panchayat Union, taking advantage of a communication dated 04.09.2015 sent by the Personal Assistant (Development) to the District Collector, Madurai, wherein, they were informed that the jeep driver post will have to be filled up before 30.04.2015, failing which, the post shall lapse, appointed Ramu as jeep driver vide appointment letter dated 16.09.2015 with effect from the same date. The Usilampatti Panchayat Union also sent a communication dated 23.09.2015 to the District Collector, Madurai, seeking ratification of the appointment of Ramu. Perhaps, on the strength of this communication, Ramu filed W.P.(MD) No.21125 of 2015 and also got interim stay on 01.12.2015, of the earlier letters rejecting his appointment, as stated above.
5.17 The Usilampatti Panchayat Union convened a meeting on 25.01.2016 to discuss several subjects. Agenda no.14 related to payment of Rs.6,688/- as salary to Ramu for the month of July 2015 on the basis of Rs.304/- as daily wages. When this agenda was circulated to the members by proceedings dated 18.01.2016, Alagumalai filed W.P.(MD) No. 1552 of 2016 seeking to challenge the proposed resolution and also for a direction to appoint him in the post of jeep driver. Before the learned Single Judge, on behalf of the appellants, a counter affidavit dated nil was filed in W.P.(MD) 21125 of 2015. In paragraph of 12 of the said counter affidavit, it was averred as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022 “….as per G.O.(Ms) No.541, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, dated 26.09.1989, in case of non-availability of suitable candidate under particular category i.e, S.C (A)(P), the next chance should go to S.C.(A) Non-priority and the backlog vacancy under S.C(A) (P) should be kept unfilled until next recruitment. Even then, if there is no vacancy under non-priority category in SC (A), then next chance has to be gone to SC (General). In the instant case, the petitioner is appointed under general turn that too without obtaining fresh panel of list from the employment exchange concerned which nothing but gross violation of guidelines made in consonance with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the ratification sent by 3rd respondent for the appointment of petitioner dated 23.09.2015 has been rightly rejected by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 20.11.2015.” 5.18 The two writ petitions, viz., W.P. (MD) No.21125 of 2015 filed by Ramu and W.P.(MD) No.1552 of 2016 filed by Alagumalai were heard together and disposed of by a common order dated 16.02.2022. That order gave rise to the instant four intra-Court appeals being W.A. (MD) Nos.687 and 688 of 2022 by the officials and W.A. (MD) Nos.775 and 776 of 2022 by Ramu.
6 The learned Single Judge, while disposing of both the writ petitions by a common order, gave the following directions to the authorities:
a) The said Alagumalai shall be appointed in the vacancy of Krishnan and Alagumalai is entitled to salary and other benefits from the date of appointment only.
b) The said Ramu shall be appointed to the vacancy arose due to the transfer of Balasubramanian.
c) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022 7 Insofar as direction (a), supra, as per the advertisement given by the Usilampatti Panchayat Union, the minimum educational qualification is a pass in 10th Std., whereas, Alagumalai, even in his own letter, had claimed that he had studied only upto 8th Std. Though he belongs to SC (Arudhathiyinar) community which is the priority community, he neither possesses the minimum educational qualification nor satisfies the age limit criterion.
8 In Ground No.9 in the memorandum of grounds, the authorities have stated that Alagumalai is around 48 years and unless the condition qua age limit is relaxed, he cannot be appointed. Be it noted, the learned Single Judge, losing sight of the said aspect, had held that Alagumalai, as he belongs to SC (Arudhathiyinar), is an eligible candidate and that he may be appointed in the vacancy of late Krishnan and that he is entitled to get salary from the date of his appointment.
9 Such a direction given by the learned Single Judge is clearly erroneous and not based upon the facts of the case. Hence, the said relief granted by the learned Single Judge insofar as W.P.(MD) No.1552 of 2016 cannot be countenanced. As a sequitur, W.A. (MD) No.688 of 2022 preferred by the District Collector, Madurai and the Usilampatti Panchayat Union stands allowed and ex consequenti, W.P. (MD) No.1552 of 2016 preferred by Alagumalai stands dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022 10 Insofar as the appointment of Ramu, it is clearly illegal and the Usilampatti Panchayat Union has adopted several devious procedures to appoint him and later, to give him fresh appointment by misquoting the letter dated 04.09.2015 sent by the Collectorate, wherein, the Usilampatti Panchayat Union was merely informed that if the post was not filled up on or before 30.04.2015, it is likely to lapse and accordingly, information may be furnished to the Government. By no stretch of imagination, the Collectorate ever informed that the Usilampatti Panchayat Union could change the roster point and appoint a person from MBC category, whereas, the post was meant for SC (Arundhathiyinar) as priority. Even otherwise, if no SC (Arudhathiyinar) candidate is available, the post will have to go only to an SC (General) candidate and not contrary to the roster point.
11 As regards the application of roster point and whether communal roster will have to be followed, the learned Single Judge has given a categorical finding in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order under appeal and they are as follows:-
“6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents have clarified the appropriate Government orders which is applicable for the recruitment process as on 2008 and 2015. The said Krishnan was appointed on 01.09.2008. The G.O.Ms.No.241, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (K) Department, dated 29.10.2007 read with G.O.Ms.No.101, dated 30.05.2008 is applicable.
The cut off date prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.241 is 15.09.2007 and in G.O.ms.No.101, the cut off date prescribed as 15.09.2007. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022
7. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the vacancy arose prior to 01.09.2008. If it is considered as 01.09.2008, then the available vacancy ought to be filled up as per the G.O.Ms.No.241, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (K) Department, dated 29.10.2007, under General Turn. Then the next vacancy ought to be filled up by SC or SC(A).” 12 Supporting the aforesaid finding, the learned Additional Advocate General referred to the relevant Government Orders and submitted that the 200 point roster prescribed under G.O.Ms.241, P & A.R. (K) Department dated 29.10.2007 will have to be followed while filling up the vacancies.
13 As per the communal roster, after the first general turn, the second vacancy will have to go to Scheduled Caste candidate and since a further internal reservation of 3.5% has been prescribed for Scheduled Caste (Arundhathiyinar), priority will have to be given for such candidates. From the beginning, the Usilampatti Panchayat Union was not inclined to adhere to the Government Orders and was making appointments on its own and later, it sought ratification. It must be noted that even if the District Collector, being the Inspector of Panchayats, wishes to do so, he cannot bypass the roster point.
14 Therefore, the District Collector, Madurai, had correctly rejected the proposal for ratification submitted by the Usilampatti Panchayat Union on both occasions. If at all Ramu continues in service, it is by virtue of the interim order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge and the support extended by the officers of the Usilampatti Panchayat Union.
15 The learned Additional Advocate General also informed that action has been initiated by the Government against Mr. Ashiq, the first Commissioner and Mrs. Rajammal, the second Commissioner, for their lapse in dealing with the appointment.
16 Mr.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for Ramu, knowing the irregularities committed, supplied a new reason, i.e. in respect of a single post, there cannot be a reservation as it would amount to a 100% reservation which is impermissible in law. He placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v Faculty Association, [(1998) 4 SCC 1 and Dr.Chakradhar Paswan v State of Bihar & Ors [(1988) 2 SCC 214].
17 Be it noted, the said argument overlooks the difference between a “cadre” and a “post”. Faculty Association (supra) referred to by the learned counsel has been sufficiently explained by the Supreme Court in State Of Karnataka & others vs K. Govindappa & another [(2009) 1 SCC 1], wherein, it was held as under:-
“18. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the decisions cited by learned counsel in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022 support thereof. In dealing with the issue raised in this appeal, it has to be kept in mind that some of the earlier decisions in Madhavi's case (supra), in the case of Suresh Chandra as J.B. Agarwal [(1997) 5 SCC 363 and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research vs. K.L. Narasimhan [(1997) 6 SCC 283, in which reservation by rotation even in respect of a single post had been approved, was subsequently overruled in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research vs. Faculty Association (supra) and it was held that in no case could reservation be made applicable in respect of a single post……”
19. In this regard, Mr. Hegde has explained the difference between "post" and "cadre" and that the two expressions could not be equated with each other. He has also explained that the expression "cadre" was not synonymous with "service" and that merely because there were single posts in the different disciplines taught in the college, it did not mean that each post constituted a separate cadre within the cadre of Lecturers. While there can be no difference of opinion that the expressions "cadre", "post"
and "service" cannot be equated with each other, at the same time the submission that single and isolated posts in respect of different disciplines cannot exist as a separate cadre cannot be accepted. In order to apply the rule of reservation within a cadre, there has to be plurality of posts….” 18 Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the appointment of Ramu as jeep driver on both occasions was clearly illegal and contrary to the Government Orders and rules of reservation. Once it is held that it is an illegal appointment, such person who gets appointed cannot be given any relief by the Writ Court even on principles of equity or sympathy. The learned Single Judge was primarily moved on the ground that Ramu was working for 7 years and because of the mistake of officers, he cannot be penalized. The fact that he has a family to take care of must have presumably weighed in the mind of the learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022 Single Judge and therefore, he was directed to be appointed in the vacancy caused due to the transfer of one Balasubramanian. It must be stated that this is beyond the scope of the writ petition and the Court can never perpetuate illegalities. It is also clarified that the vacancy that arose out of the transfer of Balasubramanian was a regular post coming under the Department of Rural Development and Ramu cannot be appointed in that post. It is not as if Ramu was appointed in a proper manner and later, due to some administrative failure, the appointment had to be cancelled which requires some equity to be applied. On the other hand, from day one, Ramu was appointed irregularly and thanks to the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 01.12.2015, he continues to be in service.
19 In such view of the matter, direction (b) given by the learned Single Judge in the common order dated 16.02.2022, which has been extracted in paragraph 6 (supra) is set aside and as a sequitur, W.A.(MD) No.687 of 2022 preferred by the District Collector, Madurai, P.A. (Development) to the District Collector, Madurai and the Usilampatti Panchayat Union stands allowed. However, due to the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, Ramu was retained in service and also wages were drawn by the Usilampatti Panchayat Union. Thus, it can safely be presumed that he must have worked to have gained https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18 W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022 the said wages. In such view of the matter, we direct that the authorities shall not recover from Ramu the wages paid to him.
20 In view of the above discussion, both the intra-Court appeals preferred by Ramu, viz., W.A. (MD) Nos.775 and 776 of 2022 stand dismissed.
21 To sum up:
➢ The common order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.MD) Nos.21125 of 2015 and 1552 of 2016 is set aside and W.P. (MD) Nos.21125 of 2015 and 1552 of 2016 stand dismissed;
➢ W.A. (MD) Nos.687 and 688 of 2022 are allowed;
➢ W.A. (MD) Nos.775 and 776 of 2022 are dismissed; and
➢ There shall be no order as to costs. Connected C.M.Ps. are closed.
(P.N.P., J.) (R.H., J.)
17.08.2022
cad
To
1 The District Collector, Madurai District,Madurai
2 The Personal Assistant to the District Collector
(Development Section)
Collectorate, Madurai, Madurai District
3 The Commissioner
Panchayat Union
Usilampatti Panchayat Union
Madurai District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19
W.A. (MD) Nos.687, 688, 775 & 776 of 2022
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
and
R. HEMALATHA, J.
cad
Pre-delivery common judgment in
W.A. (MD) Nos. 687,688,775 & 776 of 2022
17.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20