ANUP KRISHNA P. & OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (W.P.(C) No.17714 of 2019)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.17714 OF 2019(L)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**ANUP KRISHNA.P,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 40 YEARS**| ||**S/O. P. KRISHNANUNNY, RESIDING AT PARANGODATH**| ||**HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA (P.O), THRISSUR PIN 680 551**| |**2**|**JIBY JOSEPH,**| ||**AGED 36 YEARS**| ||**S/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT THURUTHIPPILLIL HOUSE,**| ||**KAKKOOR (P.O), ERNAKULAM PIN 686 662**| |**3**|**JOPHIE MATHEW,**| ||**AGED 39 YEARS**| ||**S/O. MATHEW M. THOMAS, RESIDING AT VETTICAD HOUSE,**| ||**NEAR BEKAL CLUB, PADANEKKADU (P.O), KASARAGOD**| ||**PIN 671 314**| |**4**|**JANEESH C.V,**| ||**AGED 36 YEARS**| ||**S/O. VIJAYAN C.K, RESIDING AT CHANGANAPARAMBIL**| ||**HOUSE, MANIKKUNI, SULTHAN BATHERY (P.O), WAYANAD,**| ||**PIN 673 592**| |**5**|**PRAVEEN N. NAIR,**| ||**AGED 44 YEARS**| ||**S/O. T.N NEELAKANTAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PURACKAL**| ||**VYKUNDAM HOUSE (VINU VIHAR), MARIYAPPALLI (P.O),**| ||**KOTTAYAM PIN 686 013**| |**6**|**CELSIUS A. THOMAS,**| ||**AGED 39 YEARS**| ||**S/O. A.V THOMAS, RESIDING AT ASARIPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**THENGODE (P.O), ERNAKULAM PIN 682 030**| |**7**|**JISHMA A,**| ||**AGED 36 YEARS**| ||**D/O. ARYADAN MAMMU, RESIDING AT ARYADAN HOUSE,**| ||**MANALODY, NILAMBUR (P.O), MALAPPURAM PIN 679 329**| |**8**|**SURAJ R. NAIR,**| ||**AGED 41 YEARS**| ||**S/O. E.K RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT POURNAMI**| ||**HOUSE, ALA (P.O), CHENGANNUR, ALAPUZHA PIN 689 126**| - **9 DINILKUMAR S, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT VAISHNAVAM HOUSE, ARADHANA NAGAR, ULIYAKOVIL (P.O), KOLLAM PIN 691 019** - **10 SANAL KUMAR Y, AGED 41 YEARS S/O. YESHUDAS, RESIDING AT PULININNA KALLAMPOTTA HOUSE, PARANIYAM, POOVAR (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 525** - **11 RENJITH V, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. N. VELLAPPAN NAIR, RESIDING AT VASANTHODAYAM HOUSE, COURT ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 139** **BY ADVS. SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE SMT.CISSY MATHEWS SRI.SARUN RAJAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PANCHAYATHI RAJ, 11TH FLOOR, JEEVAN PRAKASH BUILDING, 25, K.G MARG, NEW DELHI PIN 110 001** - **2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001** - **3 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 033** - **4 THE NODAL OFFICER, RASHTRIYA GRAMA SWARAJ ABHIYAM(R.G.S.A), PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 033** **R1 BY SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.SUNIL KUMAR.KURIAKOSE , GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.10.2019, THE COURT ON 23.10.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **P.V.ASHA, J. ---------------------------W.P.(C) No.17714 of 2019 ---------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of October, 2019** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners who are working as Management Information System (MIS) Specialists in various Districts under the Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Abhiyan (RGSA) are challenging the termination of their services. 2. The petitioners were appointed as 'Specialist (MIS)' in Programme Management Units (PMU) under the erstwhile Rajiv Gandhi Panchayat Sasakthikaran Abhiyan (RGPSA) [presently under the RGSA] on a consolidated pay of Rs.50,000/- per month on contract basis as per Ext.P2 series of orders issued on 24.01.2015. The appointment was for a period of one year. They have been continuing since then on renewal of contract, executing agreements for the same, from time to time. The RGSA is a centrally sponsored scheme under the Ministry of Panchayat Raj under the Government of W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 :4: India. The Government of Kerala is implementing the project through the Director of Panchayat who is the Nodal Officer. The Nodal Officer, as per Ext.P1 notification issued on 20.05.2014, invited applications for appointment to various posts including 15 posts of Specialist (MIS) for setting up the state level and district level Programme Management Units (PMU) as part of RGPSA. The essential qualifications prescribed for the posts of Specialist (MIS) were the following: - _The Specialist will be professionally qualified with post graduate qualification in Computer Science/Statistics/Economics/MBA (Systems) or MCA._ - • _Five years experience in database management, development of MIS, and M&E._ - _Advanced Computer skills especially in the use of the advanced statistical analysis tools._ - _Good written and oral communication skills in English & Malayalam._ The competencies, skills and experience required for the post were notified as follows: _The main assignment for Specialist (MIS) is to strengthen the M&E System of Panchayats and Panchayat Directorate to improve the internal monitoring systems and thereby improve the capacity of local bodies. The M&E Specialist will monitor inputs and outputs, evaluate outcomes and use these information for changes in policies, programmes, etc. The Specialist should have the following competency:_ - _Sound knowledge in information and technology essential for information management and local governments._ W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 :5: - _Good and demonstrated knowledge in research, reporting and coordination skills._ - _Good technical competence and professional skills in designing software applications necessary for planning and monitoring of activities._ - _Effectively communicate internally and externally._ - _Work effectively with a range of government agencies, development partners_ - _Ability to prioritize and manage time efficiently, results oriented and focused in tasks._ The appointment was to be made on contract basis for a period of one year on a consolidated pay of Rs.50,000/per month. It was further provided that the contract would be renewed if necessary based on performance reviews. 3. Petitioners submitted their applications and on being successful in the process of selection, 15 Specialists (MIS) including the petitioners were appointed as per Ext.P2 series of letters of appointment for a period of one year, on execution of agreement. In the letter of appointment it was stated that further extension would be based on evaluation of their performance. All the 15 Specialists including the petitioners were allotted to the respective Districts as per Ext.P3 order and they joined the offices of the W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 :6: respective Deputy Directors as directed. On the basis of the letters submitted by the Director of Panchayats seeking permission to renew the contract employment of petitioners for a further period of one year each, Government granted permission for extension of their contract employment as per Ext.P4 order dated 29.01.2016, P5 order dated 24.03.2017 and P6 order dated 20.05.2018 respectively. While granting extension as per Ext.P5 order for the period from 01.02.2017, 10% hike was also ordered in their pay. Thus they continued on a monthly pay of Rs.55,000/- from 01.02.2017 onwards. In Ext.P7 order issued on 27.05.2019 Government stated that the term of the contract of the staff recruited for the Program Management Unit of RGSA expired on 31.01.2019 and that the Director of Panchayats had requested to renew the contract employment of MIS Specialists and Computer Programmer for a further period. After examining the matter the Government decided to grant permission for extending the term of contract of the existing 11 Specialists (MIS)-i.e the petitioners herein, for a period of 5 W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** months from 01.02.2019 to 30.06.2019 on a monthly pay of Rs.50,000. 4. Stating that the Government have not permitted extension of the staff in the PMUs under the RGSA beyond 30.06.2019, the Director of Panchayats, on 26.06.2019 issued Ext.P7(a) letter directing all the Deputy Directors of Panchayats that the MIS Specialists in the respective Districts shall not be permitted to work from 01.07.2019 onwards. It was directed that the technical duties which were being performed by the MIS Specialists shall be entrusted to one of the employees in the office and that the existing MIS Specialists shall impart requisite preliminary training to such employees to equip them to perform such duties. 5. This writ Petition was filed at that stage alleging that the Government deviated from the mandate of Ext.P1 notification and denied extension to petitioners though the project is continuing under the Central Government. It is stated that though a Team Leader and 15 MIS Specialists were appointed, as at present there is no Team Leader and there are only 11 W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** MIS Specialists. Some of them are given charge of 2 districts. 6. Pointing out Ext.P8 minutes of the meeting of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) of the RGSA held on 22-23.02.2019 petitioners claim that the Central Government has already granted approval for the budget presented by the State Government and has granted approval to the component 'salary' to those employed under the PMUs for the period upto March 2020. Therefore according to the petitioners denial of extension of contract period for one more year was illegal, when the project continues. It is their contention that as per Ext.P9 guidelines issued by the Central Government for implementation of the RGSA project, the duties assigned to the staff of PMUs cannot be assigned to the employees in the Panchayats or the Directorates and the direction to entrust the duties of MIS to such persons is contrary to the guidelines. The employees of PMUs are to be additional staff intended for capacity building of the elected representatives and Panchayat functionaries to W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** implement the new initiatives and tasks of Panchayat Raj institutions and the duties of such additional staff and the task to be performed under the project of Central Government are not to be entrusted to any employee in the Panchayat. According to them Ext.P9 provides for appointment of professionals with relevant experience and expertise as per the norms approved by the State Executive Committee. The petitioners alleged that Government want to divert the budget allocation approved by Central Government for other purposes contrary to the guidelines Ext.P9 and the very object of the project. It is also their contention that the authority to approve or modify the norms for appointment is the State Executive Committee. 7. The 3[rd] respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that professionals with relevant experience and expertise in capacity building, Panchayath Raj & Social Development, IEC, monitoring & evolution etc, shall be engaged as per the norms approved by the State Executive Committee. The State Executive Committee is set up under the chairmanship of Secretary, Panchayat W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Raj Department for Planning, Implementation and monitoring of RGSA projects as per the Central Government norms and it has to submit the plans and get approval of the same from the central empowered committee. It is stated that petitioners were appointed only on contract basis for a period of one year and they are bound by the terms and conditions in the order of their appointment. It is stated that there is no provision that the minimum contract period of employment shall be one year or that every extension shall be for one year. It is stated that the Director of Panchayats who is the Nodal Officer of RGSA reevaluated the performance of the petitioners and found that the present unit is not capable of implementing the RGSA projects properly and that they were unable to complete the desired projects in the RGSA and they could not establish a proper Management Information System for RGSA and therefore he requested the Government to reconstitute the Programme Management Unit (PMU) in accordance with RGSA guidelines as per Ext.R3(a) letter dated 10.01.2019. It is also stated W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** that the Nodal Officer has stated that the MIS Specialists are not up to the expectations in implementing the project and the RGSA projects are not completed in time by the units; he therefore requested to restructure the PMU issuing a fresh notification; after examining the suggestion, Government decided to extend the contract of the petitioners only upto 30.06.2019 as per Ext.P7 order. It is stated that the Nodal Officer had as per Ext.R3(b) letter dated 22.06.2019, submitted a detailed proposal for the restructuring of the PMU for the RGSA projects including professionals with sufficient experience in planning, training, economic development, social justice, project management, MIS, procurement and disbursement, civil works, monitoring and evaluation etc, in accordance with guidelines of RGSA. It is stated that Government is seriously considering the recommendation for restructuring by appointing professionals in different posts with different qualifications. Therefore according to the respondents, the petitioners cannot have any claim or right to W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** continue in the post of MIS Specialist or to insist that there cannot be any restructuring of PMU. 8. Producing the performance appraisal reports Ext.P13 series to Ext.P21 series in respect of the petitioners they have filed a reply affidavit stating that there is no basis for the statement of the 3[rd] respondent regarding the petitioners. According to them their performance had always been above expectations and their services were being appreciated by the concerned Deputy Directors of Panchayat who were evaluating their performance and the Nodal Officer has also never expressed any displeasure. According to them there is no material to indicate that there was any deficiency in their performance. It is also their contention that Ext.R3(b) does not contain any proposal to replace the MIS Specialists and that the Union Government does not permit such a restructuring and also that it is the State Executive Committee which is to approve restructuring, if any. 9. The learned Government Pleader along with memo dated 3.10.2019 produced the minutes of the meeting W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** held on 17.09.2019 by the Additional Director of Panchayat along with Senior Finance Officer, Joint Director of Panchayat(Development), Senior Superintendent, Junior Superintendent and System Manager of the Directorate of Panchayat in which the performance of the petitioners were assessed, along with their performance evaluation proforma. In this minutes they found that the performance evaluation of petitioners 1 and 5 was upto the expectations; that of petitioners 2,3 and 8 was average; that of others was below average and/unsatisfactory. 10. Petitioners thereupon filed an additional reply affidavit pointing out that the Director of Panchayat had issued Ext.P22 order on 27.07.2018 enumerating the duties and responsibilities of MIS Specialists and as per Ext.P23 order the Deputy Directors of Panchayats were directed to evaluate the performance of MIS Specialists. Petitioners stated that the respective Deputy Directors had thereafter submitted their performance evaluation reports and that the reports like Ext.P11 (f), P12 (e) and P15 (e) W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** in respect of petitioners 1, 2 and 5 were submitted thereafter. It is stated that the remarks in the proforma of evaluation made by the committee on 17.09.2019 did not have any connection with the remarks in the evaluation reports submitted by the Deputy Directors. According to them preparation of such a proforma and the assessment were made with the intention to oust them and to make fresh appointment in their place as the same was issued much after they filed the writ petition, after the orders Exts.P7 and P7 (a) were issued. 11. Relying on the judgment of the apex court in _**Muhammed Abdul Khader and another v. Director General**_ _**of Police, Assam and Ors. : 2009 (6) SCC 611,**_ the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that as long as the scheme continues, the persons who are appointed for implementation of the scheme are entitled to continue and they are not liable to be replaced. The judgments of the Delhi High Court reported in _**2014 SCC online Del. 2243 Areendar Sing Pooja vs. Health and family welfare**_ and in _**Abhinav choudhari vs. Delhi**_ W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 :15: _**Technological uty : 2015 SCC online Del 6780**_ and that of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in _**Ajay V State of Maharashtra : 2014(6) Mh.L.J. 458**_ were also relied on in support of his contention that services of the petitioners are not liable to be terminated as long as the project continues and that they are not liable to be replaced. Pointing out that the Central Government funds are available for continuation of the project till March 2020 it was argued that the proceedings to replace them that too by conducting a process of fresh selection changing the qualification with respect to the posts of MIS Specialist is a malafide exercise of power to oust the petitioners and to induct fresh hands. 12. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that when the appointment of the petitioners itself was on contract basis they did not have any right to continue on expiry of the period for which they were appointed. Pointing out the orders of appointment, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that the last extension of their contract was only upto W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 30.06.2019 and therefore they do not have any right to continue anymore. It is also pointed out that the Nodal Officer has found it necessary to restructure the entire PMU with additional posts as well as posts with different qualification in tune with the guidelines issued by the Central Government. The judgment of this Court in _**Santhosh K.V V Malabar Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (Milma) Kannur** :_ _**2018 KHC 279**_ was also relied on in support of the contention that the petitioners cannot have any right to continue beyond the contract period. The learned Government Pleader also argued that the evaluation of performance by the Deputy Directors were not in tune with the requirement or with the purpose for which the project was commenced. 13. On consideration of the contentions on either side, it is seen that the 3[rd] respondent has suggested a restructuring in Ext.R3(b) letter pointing out there is no Team Leader as at present and there are only MIS. It is also stated that out of the 2.37 crores approved for the PMU the salary for the staff itself comes to 90 W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** lakhs, etc. However 15 posts of MIS continue to exist in Ext.R3(b) letter also but on consolidated salary of only Rs.35,000/- and with a different qualification i.e B.Tech in Computer Science/IT or MBA in Rural Development/System Management and 4 years experience in managing the Management Information System and experience in software development. In the event of such a restructuring the petitioners who are having different qualification will not be able to continue even if their performance is outstanding. But it is pertinent to note that the RGSA emphasizes the strengthening of governance capabilities of Panchayats, as evident from Chapter 10 of 'the framework of RGSA' laid down by the Government of India, where it deals with PMUs, starting with the following: _“The present strength and capacity of State Panchayat Raj Department needs to be enhanced to enable them to undertake the task of preparing States plans and implementing RGSA for the development of Panchayats in the state. To support the Panchayat Raj departments of the States, PMU at the state level may be set up for planning, implementation and monitoring of RGSA from within the 5% programme management costs. Professionals with relevant experience and expertise in capacity building, Panchayath Raj & Social Development, IEC, monitoring & evolution etc, may be engaged_ _**as per norms approved by the State Executive Committee** . Full Time Consultants_ W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** _may be hired from time to time or outsourced to professional agencies for programme management_ _**as per norms approved by the SEC** .”_ (emphasis supplied) 14. Therefore any engagement including the restructuring can be made in the PMU only with the approval of the State Executive Committee (SEC). The suggested composition of SEC as provided in Chapter 11 of the framework is Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department as Chairman, Secretary Department of Agriculture, Joint secretary Panchayat Raj, Director General/Director, State Institute of Rural Development/Panchayat Raj Training Institute, Joint Secretaries of Departments of (1) Rural Development, (2) Social Welfare, (3) Women and Child Welfare, (4) Primary Education, (5) Health and Family Planning, (6) Youth Welfare and (7)Finance; Director of Panchayat Raj and Additional/Joint Director, Panchayat Raj Department. Not more than 2 special invitees may also be nominated by the Chairman. Even though the 3[rd] respondent has stated that the Nodal Officer has suggested complete restructuring and it is under W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** consideration of the Government, nothing is stated as to whether the suggestion in Ext.R3(b) is placed before the SEC; or whether it is approved by the SEC. Mere consideration by Government would not be sufficient. 15. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not be applicable when termination is effected on restructuring or on evaluation of performance. It cannot be said that the proposed restructuring is bad. It is for the SEC to consider the qualification, scale of pay, etc before its approval. Ext.P8 minutes or Ext.P9 guidelines issued by the Central Government, do not provide which should be the qualification for appointment. It only cautions that only professionals with relevant experience and expertise in the areas are appointed as per the requirements of the states like micro planning and community mobilization, monitoring and evaluation. It further provides that the SPMU can have a project management unit to provide management and implementation support and to ensure a robust MIS system to facilitate technical assistance to state for W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** identified major functional areas like planning, training gender, economic development, social justice, project management, media and IAC, MIS procurement and disbursement, civil works, monitoring and evaluation. SEC is free to determine the qualifications required for the post in order to achieve the aforesaid purposes. There is no material to arrive at a conclusion that the proposed modification of qualification or reduction of pay is contrary to the norms or frame work laid down by the central government. 16. Though the appointment of the petitioners were on contract basis for year to year a provision for extension was provided in the notification as well as the letters of their appointment, subject to evaluation of their performance. In case, on such evaluation the performance is found not satisfactory or below average the petitioners would not be entitled to raise any claim for continuance. Even though the 3[rd] respondent has in the counter affidavit dated 24.07.2019 and in Ext.R3(a) letter dated 10.01.2019 stated that the MIS W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Specialists are not capable of completing the projects in time and to get the central fund in time, no material is produced to show defects or deficiencies if any in their performance as on the date of filing the counter affidavit or as on 10.01.2019. The only material produced by him subsequently, when the petitioners produced Exts.P13 to P20 series of the available appraisal reports, is the performance appraisal report dated 17.09.2019 drawn by a committee headed by the Additional Director, according to which performance of most of the petitioners were not upto the mark. Such a report of 17.09.2019 on evaluation made during the pendency of the writ petition could not have been the basis for the averments in the counter affidavit or Ext.R3(b). It is also not clear how the subordinate staff including the Senior Superintendent and Junior Superintendent of the Directorate though with the convener-ship of the Additional Director is constituted for evaluating the performance of MIS (Specialists). At any rate the assessment on 17.09.2019 cannot be the basis for a decision not to extend the W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 :22: contract period of appointment after 01.06.2019. 17. Moreover by Ext.P7(a) the 3[rd] respondent, while directing the Deputy Directors to stop the engagement of petitioners from 01.07.2019 onwards, had also directed that the duties being performed by the petitioners shall be entrusted to an employee in the office and directed the petitioners to impart them training. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners the duties of MIS as well as that of those appointed in PMUs cannot be entrusted to those working in the Panchayat or the Directorates. Under the suggested staff structure given in chapter 10 it is also stated as follows: _**“The purpose of SPMU is not to substitute the work of the department or the Directorate but to provide additional resources in**_ _**areas which are new.”**_ Therefore the duties which are being performed by the MIS are not liable to be entrusted to those in the directorate or the offices of Panchayats. 18. In case there is a restructuring as suggested by the 3[rd] respondent with approval by the SEC W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** respondents would be free to replace the petitioners as and when fresh hands are appointed in their place based on such restructuring. Till such time petitioners are not liable to be sent out. 19. Similarly in the event of any deficiency in their performance as revealed from the annual appraisal reports also, as on 01.06.2019, (other than in the Annexures produced along with the memo) their contract need not be renewed. But such performance appraisal should be done by officials competent to assess their performance. 20. Petitioners who are continuing from 2015 onwards on extension after evaluation of performance claim that they were never told of any deficiencies in the performance of their duties except by way of the minutes dated 17.09.2019. 21. At any rate as at present the proposed restructuring has not even reached the SEC. The duties of MIS cannot be entrusted to the staff of the office of Deputy Directors or Director or Panchayats. Ext.P7(a) order is set aside. Petitioners shall be W.P.(C) No.17714/2019 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** allowed to continue till appointments are made in accordance with the restructuring proposed in Ext.R3(b) on its approval by SEC. Respondents would be free to evaluate the performance through officials competent for the same and their continuance would also be subject to such evaluation in accordance with law. The arrears of salary due to the petitioners, if any, shall be paid within a period of two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. **Sd/-** **P.V.ASHA** **JUDGE** rkc ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20-052014 EXHIBIT P2 RUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDERS DATED 24-1-2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 AND 8 TO 11 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDERS DATED 10-06-2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIOENRS 6 AND 7 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ALLOTMENT ORDER WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONERS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-1-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-3-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-04-2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-05-2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-6-2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 23-2-2019 TOGETHERE WITH THE APPROVED BUDGET FOR THE STATE OF KERALA EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE R.G.S.A PROJECT ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3-7-2019 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT ISSUED UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.30.12.15 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER** **EXT.P11(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.6.1.17** **SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER** **EXT.P11B: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.20.10.17 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND VERIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT FOR SUBMITTING BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P11C: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT.20.10.18 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER** **EXT.P11D: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRAISAL REPORT DT.25.2.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P11E: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRAISAL REPORT DT.29.8.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P11F: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.2.9.19 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER** **EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.31.12.15 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER** **EXT.P12A: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.5.1.17 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER** **EXT.P12B: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.15.1.18 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER** **EXT.P12C: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRAISAL REPORT DT.25.2.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER AND VERIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT FOR SUBMITTING BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P12D: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRIASAL REPORT DT.30.8.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P12E: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.31.8.19 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER** **EXT.P12F: TRUE COPY OF THE APPRIASAL REPORT DT.5.9.19 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER** **EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.20.1.18 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER** **EXT.P13A: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRIASAL REPORT DT.25.2.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER AND VERIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT FOR SUBMITTING BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P13B: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRAISAL REPORT DT.31.8.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.18.1.18 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER** **EXT.P14A: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRAISAL REPORT DT.25.2.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER AND VERIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT FOR SUBMITTING BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P14B: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRIASAL REPORT DT.31.819 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.5.1.16 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER** **EXT.P15A: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.6.1.17 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER** **EXT.P15B: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.17.1.18 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER** **EXT.P15C: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRIASAL REPORT DT.26.2.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH EPTITIONER AND VERIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECOR OF PANCHAYAT FOR SUBMITTING BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P15D: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRAISAL REPORT DT.31.8.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P15E: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.31.9.19 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER** **EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.17.1.18 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER** **EXT.P16A: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRIASAL REPORT DT.25.2.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER AND VERIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT FOR SUBMITTING BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DT.2.3.18 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 7TH PETITIONER** **EXT.P17A: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRAISAL REPORT DT.25.2.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER AND VERIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT FOR SUBMITTING BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P17B: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRAISAL REPORT DT.30.8.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT DURING JANUARY 2016 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 8TH PETITIONER** **EXT.P18A: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRAISAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER DURING FEBRUARY 2019 AND VERIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT FOR SUBMITTING BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRIASAL REPORT DT.30.1.18SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P19A: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRAISAL REPORT DT.25.2.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.19B: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRAISAL REPORT DT.31.8.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.19C: TRUE COPY OF THE APPRECIATION CERTIFICATE DT.19.2.18 ISSUED BY TH DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER** **EXT.P20: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRAISAL REPORT DT.26.2.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER AND VERIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE DPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT FOR SUBMITTING BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P20A: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-APPRAISAL REPORT DT.30.8.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P21: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF APPRAISAL REPORT DT.26.2.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 11TH PETITIONER AND VERIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT FOR SUBMITTING BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXT.P21A: TRUE COPY OF THE SELF APPRAISAL REPORT DT.31.8.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 11TH PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R3(a)** **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.01.2019.** ## **EXHIBIT R3(b)** **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ATTACHED TO THE FRESH PROPOSAL FOR THE NEW STRUCTURE OF PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT UNIT.**