Kerala High Court
Sujit Nair K.M vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2020
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.11034 OF 2019(R)
PETITIONER/S:
1 SUJIT NAIR K.M.
AGED 42 YEARS
SECTIONOFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA , S/O
K.C.NAIR, SARANG, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O.,
KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682024.
2 SUJA A
AGED 51 YEARS
JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA, CHILLA,ONAMPALAM,
MULAVANA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691503.
3 SATHEESAN T.
AGED 44 YEARS
SENIOR CLERK (HG), SUB COURT, VATAKARA
PUTHANPURAYIL, THRIVENI HOUSE, PERAMBRA P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673525.
4 HARIKRISHNAN M.
AGED 34 YEARS
ADVOCATE, S/O R.MURALEEDHARAN, KIZHAKKE
VYLOPPADICKAL-H, THEKKE NADA, VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM-
686141.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.PRADEEP
SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
SMT.NEENA ARIMBOOR
SRI.T.T.BIJU
SMT.T.THASMI
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME (C)
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT,
KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682031.
4 REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT, KOCHI-682031.
5 MS. ANEESA A
NYAYADHIKARI, GRAM NYAYALAYA, CHITTUMALA AT
PERINAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA-691601 RESIDING AT
SHIJI NIVAS (H) AYANTHI, VARKALA P.O., TRIVANDRUM
KERALA, PIN-695 141.
6 MR. NIJESH KUMAR P.
NYAYADHIKARI, GRAM NYAYALAYA, IRIKKUR, KANNUR
DISTRICT-670 593 RESIDING AT POONAKATTIL HOSUE,
MORAYUR POST, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN-673 642.
7 MR. ARUN KUMAR P
NYAYADHIKARI, GRAM NYAYALAYA, MALAMPUZHA AT
PUDUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 731 RESIDING
AT PUTHIYACHIRAYIL, KOOTAMKAITHA, HARIPAD,
KUMARAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN-690 548.
8 MS.SHINY M.S,NYAYADHIKARI, GRAM NYAYALAYA, PONNANI
AT EDAPPAL AND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF PARAPPANANGADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679583 RESIDING AT KALLADATH
VALAPPIL, KODANAD MEZHATHOOR P.O., PALAKKAD,
KERALA, PIN-679 534.
9 MS.SOORYA S.SUKUMARAN, NYAYADHIKARI, GRAM
NYAYALAYA, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689672
RESIDING AT AJAI BHAVAN (H), EZHUKONE, EDAKKIDOM
P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN-691 505.
10 MR.KRISHNAPRABHAN R
NYAYADHIKARI, GRAM NYAYALAYA, KUZHALMANNOM AT
THENKURUSSI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 671 RESIDING AT
KAUSHTUBHAM HOUSE, NEDUNGADAPPALLY, SANTHIPURAM
P.O., KOTTAYAM, KERALA, IN-686 545.
11 MS.SALINI B, NYAYADHIKARI, GRAM NYAYALAYA, CHAVARA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 583, RESIDING AT AIKKARA VEEDU,
VENJARAMOODU, VENJARAMOODU P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695607.
12 MS. JAIBY KURIAKOSE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KODUNGALLOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 664 RESIDING AT PALAKKADAN
HOUSE, ADIMALY, IDUKKI 685 561.
13 MS.SUMEY CHANDRAN
NYAYADHIKARI, GRAM NYAYALAYA, CHENDAMANGALAM AT
PARAVUR AND MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE, NORTH PARVUR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 512 RESIDING AT SUMI NIVAS
(H), THALAYOLAPARAMBU P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 605.
ADV.BIJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
BY ADV. SMT.K.N.REMYA
BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
BY ADV. SHRI.VISHNU V.K.
BY ADV. KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA
BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE
BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.11034/2019
.
.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners who were candidates, included in the rank list for appointment to the post of Munsiff- Magistrates pursuant to the notification issued in the year 2016 are aggrieved by the action of the High Court in limiting the appointments to 22 vacancies as against the 35 vacancies notified.
2. The High Court of Kerala issued Ext.P2 notification dated 18.02.2016 inviting application for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrates in the Kerala Judicial Service from among qualified candidates. The number of vacancies was notified as 35 with a rider in the notes as follows:
"2. Number of Vacancies : 35 Nos Notes: (1) The number of vacancies notified is likely to increase on the commencement of Gram Nyayalayas sanctioned by the State Government as per order GO (Ms.) No.86/2011/Home dated 01.03.2011.
(2) The number of vacancies notified is likely to decrease on account of NCA vacancies that may arise during the selection process."
3. The method of recruitment was stated to be direct recruitment as well as recruitment by transfer. As per Rule 5 (3) of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, one out of every W.P.(C) No.11034/2019 :5: four vacancies of Munsiff Magistrates, the 1 st, 2nd and 3rd are to be filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment and the 4th by transfer from among Officers included in the feeder categories in Clause (i) to (viii) therein. Simultaneously, Ext.P2(a) notification was issued against two NCA vacancies i.e., one each from Hindu Nadars and one from Scheduled Tribes candidates.
4. The 4th petitioner submitted application for direct recruitment and the petitioners 1 to 3 submitted applications for appointment in the quota for appointment by transfer. After the process of selection, Ext.P3 merit list was published on 04.08.2017. The 4th petitioner was ranked at sl.no.15 in Part A list of Ext.P3 and petitioners 1 to 3 are at serial no.7, 6 and 8 respectively in Part B of the list in the quota for appointment by transfer. Petitioners point out that they are the next candidates in the Part A and Part B list who were denied appointment consequent to the reduction of vacancies.
5. Aggrieved by the denial of appointments against all the vacancies notified, they had approached the Supreme Court alleging that the vacancies, which arose during the year 2015 and 2016, were utilised for appointment of candidates from the previous list of 2013. According to the W.P.(C) No.11034/2019 :6: petitioners only 52 candidates would have been appointed from the 2013 rank list. But appointments were given to 66 candidates including 5 candidates against NCA vacancies. However the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the Writ Petition (Civil) No.31/2018 filed by them as per Ext.P8 judgment observing that High Court was justified in making 66 appointments pursuant to the advertisement in the year 2013; the incumbents who were already sent for training and were paid stipend could not have been denied appointment due to the delay on the part of Government of Kerala in creating the posts of Gram Nyayalayas; that has been taken care of by rightly appointing 66 candidates. However, it was ordered that the rank list should not be operated any more. It was also observed that the petitioners would be free to point out any error in calculating vacancies for which they would be free to submit representations and that the same shall be objectively and sympathetically looked into by the Committee of the High Court on administrative side and that in case any vacancy has been wrongly calculated, the needful shall be done.
6. The petitioners had submitted detailed representations Ext P9 series pointing out that 35 vacancies actually arose in 2015-2016 and therefore 13 more W.P.(C) No.11034/2019 :7: vacancies were liable to be filled up by 2016 recruitment and requesting to appoint them. But the same was rejected as per Exts.P10 and P10(a) orders stating that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a quietus to the recruitment made pursuant to the notification of 2013 and that no mistake was noticed in the calculation of vacancies. The petitioners complain that there was no objective or sympathetic consideration on their representations as directed by the Apex Court. It is their case that the error in calculation of vacancies is evident from Ext P11 - I.A.No.147/2016 filed by the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 1867 of 2006 before the Honourable Supreme Court on 18.01.2016 where the High Court had stated that 66 candidates were appointed as Munsiff-Magistrate trainees as per notification dated 31.10.2014 and 01.11.2014 and one year statutory pre-induction training was already started for the 66 candidates. From the above statement it is clear that there were only 38 vacancies during the period from 21.03.2013 to 31.12.2014, out of which 7 were NCA vacancies. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the I.A would indicate that 28 vacancies arose in 2015. Producing Exts.P15 to P19 proceedings along with the reply affidavit the petitioners have also pointed out that, 2 vacancies arose on account of W.P.(C) No.11034/2019 :8: Ext.P15 proceedings on 06.02.2015; 1 vacancy arose on account of Ext.P16 order on 24.04.2015; 16 vacancies on the basis of Ext.P17 order dated 14.07.2015; 11 vacancies on the basis of Ext.P18 order dated 13.04.2016 and 10 vacancies on the basis of Ext.P19 order dated 19.05.2016. Out of these, Exts.P18 and P19 relates to the year 2016 i.e., 13.04.2016 and 19.05.2016 relating to 21 vacancies. The petitioners have on the basis of the information collected under the RTI Act in Ext P21 and 22 asserted that there were 42 vacancies as on 31.12.2016 as well as on 01.01.2017. In answer to the question as to the number of vacancies which arose during 2015-16 the answer given by the High Court under the Right to Information Act was that the number of vacancies for a particular period cannot be given but as on 01.01.2017 as well as 31.12.2016 it was 42. The contention of the petitioners is that they were denied appointment because of the 9 excess appointments made from the 2013 rank list against the vacancies, which were to be filled up on the basis of 2016 recruitment. Producing the rotation list Ext P12 and the selection list Ext P13 petitioners point out that in order to accommodate 61 candidates, 74 vacancies were taken for 2013 recruitment, even though 13 NCA vacancies were not available. Relying W.P.(C) No.11034/2019 :9: on Ext.P14 minutes of the meeting, which they collected under the Right to Information Act, petitioners submit that their case was not considered as directed by the Apex Court.
7. The respondents 3 and 4 have filed a statement according to which the appointments of 2013 selection has already been upheld by the Apex Court and those appointments are not liable to be challenged by the petitioners any more. It is stated that Note (1) was incorporated in Ext P2 notification dated 18.02.2016, on account of the fact that Grama Nyayalayas sanctioned as per Government Order dated 01.03.2011 had not commenced functioning. Regarding Note (2) in Ext.P2 notification, it was stated that the number of vacancies that would arise on account of non availability of candidates (NCA vacancies) belonging to the communities eligible for reservation in the selection process that commenced in the year 2013, had not been finally determined. It is further stated that the NCA vacancies pertaining to the 2013 selection could be ascertained only after completion of the selection process of 2013 recruitment and accordingly 13 number of vacancies for 2016 selection in respect of regular vacancies had to be decreased during the selection process. Therefore the W.P.(C) No.11034/2019 :10: number of vacancies to be filled up based on Ext P2 was reduced to 22 and those 22 vacancies were filled up by appointing 21 candidates included in the select list and one remained as NCA. It is stated that the vacancies were reduced in accordance with Note 2 to Ext.P2 notification and therefore there is no denial of appointment. It is also stated that 66 out of 69 candidates included in the merit list prepared pursuant to the 2013 notification, were appointed as Munsiff-Magistrate trainees as per Government orders dated 31.10.2014 and 01.11.2014 and on completion of training 41 of them were appointed as Munsiff Magistrates as per order dated 29.06.2016; remaining 25 were appointed as per order dated 4.10.2016 and out of them 21 joined duty on 15.12.2016. Pointing out that the Munsiff Magistrates appointed on the basis of 2013 selection have been working on regular basis for the last 5 years, the respondents stated that on equitable considerations also their appointments are not liable to be interfered with at this distance of time. Further it is stated that the number of vacancies for 2013 notification was arrived at 74 in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in Malik Mazhar Sulthan V UP Public Service Commission (Civil Appeal No.1867/2006), including the 30 posts of Nyayadhikaris W.P.(C) No.11034/2019 :11: sanctioned as per Govt order dated 01.03.2011. It is stated that none of the 30 Gram Nyayalayas started functioning during the currency of the 2013 list and that they started functioning only after Ext P2 notification was issued on 18.02.2016. It is stated that the corrigendum notification was issued on 27.04.2016 deleting Note (1) relating to the increase of vacancies. It is stated that the appointments to the 30 posts were filled up by appointing Munsiff-Magistrate trainees from 2013 list and thereafter Note 1 of Ext P2 notification was deleted. In paragraph 6 of the statement it is stated as follows:
"Though the number of vacancies in the post of Munsiff-Magistrate in respect of Kerala Judicial Service Examination, 2016 was notified as 35, the actual number of vacancies was only 22. The remaining 13 vacancies pertain to the 2013 selection and are NCA vacancies. These vacancies are to be set apart for filling up the NCA vacancies that would arise on the completion of the regular recruitment process, which commenced in the year 2013.The said recruitment process was not complete at the time when Ext.P2 notification dated 18.02.2016 was issued. It was clear at the time of issuing Ext P2 notification that if all the 61 Munsiff-Magistrate Trainees of 2013 selection (regular vacancies) were given appointment, 13 NCA vacancies would arise in 2013 selection. All the appointments in respect of 2013 selection could be made only after issuance of notification for 2016 selection. Therefore there was uncertainty as to number of NCA vacancies that would arise and would have to be notified."
8. According to the respondents the notification Ext.P2 was issued with a rider to abide by the time limit prescribed by the Apex Court in the judgment in, Malik W.P.(C) No.11034/2019 :12: Mazhar Sulthan's case. The respondents have asserted that actual number of vacancies occurred during the period from 01.01.2015 to 13.01.2016 was not 42; but it was the total number of vacancies as on 31.12.2016 which included NCA vacancies also. It is also stated that while finalising selection process of 2016 selection joint meeting of the Administrative Committee and Munsiff Magistrate Committee had noticed the existence of excess vacancies over and above the notified 35 vacancies and the joint Committee had resolved to fill up only 22 vacancies (35 notified vacancies less 13 NCA vacancies that arose) as the number of vacancies filled up in a selection process should not exceed the number of vacancies notified. 22 vacancies which arose were filled up by appointing 21 candidates included in the selection list published on 04.08.2017. It is stated that the vacancies that arose over and above the notified vacancies had to be carried over to the next selection year and thereafter it was notified and filled up in 2017 selection process. Respondents have stated that the number of vacancies for 2013 selection was arrived at as 74 as per the guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sulthan's case. According to them 66 appointments were made as against the 74 notified vacancies W.P.(C) No.11034/2019 :13: in accordance with law and that appointments were not made in excess as alleged by petitioners. However in paragraph 18 it is stated that the High Court had sought for permission from Supreme Court to fill up the vacancies which arose in the year 2015 from 2013 select list and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected that plea. It is stated that the remaining 5 vacancies out of 42 (35 including 13 NCA and the 2 notified in Ext.P2(a)) are to be filled up by subsequent notification and it cannot be filled up from Ext.P2 notification.
9. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit pointing out that the contention of the respondents is contrary to what they themselves stated before the Supreme Court. They reiterated that when there were only 61 vacancies (including the 30 Gramanyayalayas) available for 2013 recruitment, appointments were made against 74 vacancies even though the number of vacancies was notified as probable. It is their case that the 13 vacancies were reduced from 2016 recruitment because of the excess appointments made from 2013 selection. Producing Exts.P15 to P19 proceedings of the High Court they pointed out that 40 vacancies alone arose in 2015 and 2016 on the basis of those proceedings. They have also relied on Ext P20 counter W.P.(C) No.11034/2019 :14: affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 30884/2016 in which the High Court explained how they arrived at the number of vacancies at 35 reckoning those which arose in 2015 and those likely to arise upto 31.12.2016. Therefore they asserted that they were denied appointment because of the excess appointments made from the previous select list.
10. Respondents 5 to 13 have also filed a counter affidavit stating that their appointments were in accordance with law and they have already joined duty and have been performing duties attached to the post. It is their case that because of the judgment of the apex court their appointments are not liable to be disturbed.
11. Heard Dr. K.P. Pradeep, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Elvin Peter learned Counsel for the High Court, Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai, the learned Counsel for the respondents 5 to 13 and Sri. Bijoy Chandran, the learned Government Pleader.
12. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that excess appointments were made from 2013 selection, those appointments are not liable to be interfered with in the light of Ext P8 judgment of the Apex Court in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners themselves where all the 66 appointments were given W.P.(C) No.11034/2019 :15: approval.
13. However there was a direction from the apex court to consider the representation of the petitioners in case they pointed out any errors in the calculation of vacancies. Even though the respondents have filed a statement stating that there was no error in the calculation of vacancies, statements in paragraph 5 to 7 of Ext P11 IA filed by the High Court before the Supreme Court which would belie their contention in this case were as follows:
"5. Unfortunately however, due to administrative difficulties, Gram Nyayalayas have not been established in the State of Kerala even now. Consequently, only 38 vacancies have actually arisen against the expected number of vacancies for the notified period i.e. 21.03.2013 to 31.12.2014. However, 19 additional vacancies have arisen in the year 2015, thereby taking the total number of vacancies as on date to 57.
6. In addition to the 57 vacancies identified hereinabove, 2 vacancies have arisen to the post of Sub- Judge after filing of the affidavit dated 18.11.2015 before this Hon'ble Court. In addition, as per G.O.(P) No.23/2015/Law dated 07.12.2015, the Government has accorded sanction for the creation of 7 full-time secretaries (sub-judge level officers) in the District Legal Services Authorities of 7 districts on deputation basis. Therefore, 9 posts of sub-judge have become available.
7. In furtherance thereof, judgments of 20 senior Munsiff-Magistrates have already been called for evaluation for considering their candidature for promotion as Sub- judges/CJMs. If 9 Munsiff-Magistrates are promoted to the post of Sub-judge/CJM, a total of 9 additional vacancies may arise.".
14. It is evident that 66 vacancies were not available for appointment of candidates from 2013 notification and W.P.(C) No.11034/2019 :16: that candidates were appointed as against the vacancies which arose in the year 2015.
15. In Ext.P2 notification the number of vacancies notified was 35 subject to two conditions. However the condition regarding increase in increase on the commencement of Grama Nyayalas, was deleted thereafter on commencement of 30 Grama Nyayalayas. Even thereafter the number of vacancies available for 2013 recruitment would have been only 31(38-7NCA)+30.
16. The contention of the respondents is that there arose 13 NCA vacancies out of 2013 selection and that could not be ascertained till all the Munsiff Magistrate trainees joined duty in 2016. But in the IA filed before the apex court the respondents themselves stated that 66 appointments were made from the select list of 2013 recruitment on 31.10.2014 and 01.11.2014. There will not be any change in the rotation when Munsiff Magistrate Trainees are appointed as Munsiff-Magistrates. The number of NCA vacancies would be evident from the rotation list prepared on the basis of select list for appointment as Munsiff Magistrate trainees. It is evident from Ext.P7 series of orders that all the appointments were made in 2014 itself, though as Munsiff Magistrate trainees. Eventhough the W.P.(C) No.11034/2019 :17: appointment as Munsiff-Magistrates was only in 2016, after completion of training, there would not have been an occasion for change in number of NCA vacancies. Therefore it cannot be correct to say that the number of NCA vacancies became clear only after the notification was issued in 2016 on account of the fact that the Grama nyayalayas started functioning only later and therefore the NCA vacancies were also included in the 35 vacancies notified. Though it is true that there was a rider in Ext P2 notification that the number of vacancies notified was likely to decrease on account of NCA vacancies that might arise during the selection process, it cannot be said that the actual number of vacancies had to be reduced. Admittedly 35 vacancies were notified. The respondents have admitted in paragraph 9 of the statement that there were vacancies in excess of 22 and those vacancies were notified and filled up in 2017 selection process. That would show that apart from the vacancies utilised for appointment of candidates of 2013 recruitment there were other vacancies for appointment from select list of 2016 recruitment.
17. The orders Exts.P7, 7A and 7B would show that 66 appointments were made from 2013 select list. Even assuming that 42 vacancies mentioned in the reply given under the W.P.(C) No.11034/2019 :18: RTI Act was not correct, 35 vacancies which were notified are not filled up as it was limited to 22 saying that there were 13 NCA vacancies. As per rule 15 (a) of KS&SSR when candidates belonging to reserved community are not available, the said vacancy shall be renotified separately. Respondents have issued similar notification as in the case of Ext.P2(a). It cannot be said that Ext.P2 notification would relate to the NCA vacancies also. Respondents themselves have stated that such vacancies have to be separately notified. Therefore the contention that Ext.P2 notification included 13 NCA vacancies or that 13 vacancies have to be re-notified separately out of the vacancies notified in Ext.P2 cannot be correct.
18. At any rate the averments in paragraphs 5 to 7 of Ext.P11 I.A. would show that there were 28(19+9) vacancies in 2015 itself as well as Exts.P15 to P17 would show that there arose 19 vacancies in 2015 and Exts.P18 and P19 would show that 21 vacancies arose in 2016. Therefore those 40 vacancies covered by Ext.P15 to P19 cannot include any NCA vacancies. Therefore all the 35 vacancies notified were liable to be filled up from the select list Ext.P13 without reducing any NCA vacancy. In this case only 22 have been appointed from the rank list.
W.P.(C) No.11034/2019:19:
19. Petitioners have stated that they are the next candidates from Part A and Part B of Ext.P3 rank list and they were denied appointments on account of the wrong calculation made. Petitioners should have been appointed against the vacancies which arose in 2015 -16 over and above the 22 vacancies to which appointment was limited. The petitioners herein are therefore entitled to be appointed based on their rank in the select list in accordance with rules. As the vacancies of 2015-16 are already filled up, they should be appointed against the existing or next arising vacancies. Therefore it would not be necessary to disturb the party respondents.
In the result Exts.P10 and P10(a) are set aside. There shall be a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to appoint the petitioners as Munsiff-Magistrates based on their inclusion in Ext.P3 select list, in accordance with rules, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA
Ww/rkc JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
KERALA JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES, 1991.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO REC4-
10945/2016 DATED 18.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.REC4- 10944/2016 DATED 18.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION LIST IN REC4- 10945/2016 DATED 4.8.2017 PUBLISHED IN TERMS OF EXT.P2 SELECTION NOTIFICATION. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTING ORDER IN B1(A)-
63/2018(1) DATED 11.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.3.2018 UNDER RTI ACT WITH REPLY NO.PIO 138/2018 DATED 6.4.2018 ISSUED BY TEH 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 9.5.2018 SUBMITTED UNDER RTI ACT WITH REPLY NO.PIO 271/2018 DATED 8.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION REC4 5384/2013 DATED 21.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION REC4 5382/2013 DATED 21.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 B COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION REC4 5383/2013
DATED 21.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS)
NO.218/2014/HOME DATED 31.10.2014.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS)
NO.219/2014/HOME DATED 1.11.2014.
EXHIBIT P7 B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS)
NO.217/2014/HOME DATED 31.10.2014.
EXHIBIT P7 C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS)
NO.188/2016/HOME DATED 29.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) NO.253/2016/HOME DATED 4.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) NO.312/2016/HOME DATED 29.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.10.2018 IN WPC NO.31/2018 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.10.2018 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 B TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.10.2018 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.REC 4- 10945/2016 (1) DATED 5.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.REC 4- 10945/2016 (2) DATED 5.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18.1.2016 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1867 OF 2006.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ROTATION LIST PUBLISHED WITH RESPECT TO 2013 SELECTION PURSUANT TO EXT.P6 IN THE POST OF MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE IN KERALA JUDICIAL SERVICE.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION LIST NO.REC4- 5384/2013 DATED 11.4.2014 PUBLISHED IN PURSUANT TO EXT.P6.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAES OF THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE AND MUNSIFF-
MAGISTRATES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE HELD ON 6.7.2017.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES AND THE CONTENTS OF THE FULL COURT MEETING HELD ON 3.8.2017 ISSUED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005.
EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B1-10359/2015, DT.6.2.15 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B1-17438/2015, DT.24.4.15 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B1-7938/2013(3) DT.14.7.15 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B1(A)-108826/2015, DT.13.4.2016 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B1-49765/2015, DT.19.5.16 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT.P20: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS NO.1&2 IN WPC NO.30884/16 EXT.P21: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.26.10.17 AND THE ANNEXURE REPLY DT.23.11.17 ISSUED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 FROM THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT.P22: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO PIO 173/2019 DT.1.4.19 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 EXT.P23: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO PIO 173/2019 DT.10.6.19 WITH ANNEXURE ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005