High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-02-04Writ petition dismissed.

B. Mohammed Jamal v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anu Sivaraman
Judgment Date: 2021-02-04
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed. The Court holds that the retirement age for the CEO appointed under Section 23, as amended (56 years), applies to the petitioner, and directs dismissal of the challenge to the retirement order. The decision recognizes that the post-retirement age can be fixed by the Government under the amended framework and that the Regulations apply to Board employees, not to the CEO, but the prescription under the amended Section 23 governs the existing incumbent.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

B. Mohammed Jamal

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Kerala State Waqf Board
The Chairperson, Kerala State Waqf Board
Nassir Manayil

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Jaju Babu (Sr.)
• M. U. Vijayalakshmi
• Brijesh Mohan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri S. Ramesh Babu (Sr.)
• Sri Imam Grigorios Karat
• Sri N. Krishna Prasad
• Smt. Gayathri Poti
• Sri T. U. Ziyad
• Smt. Rameena P.K.

Case Synopsis & Summary

The writ petition (WP(C) No. 25822 of 2020) before the Kerala High Court concerns the retirement age of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Kerala State Waqf Board. B. Mohammed Jamal, appointed in 2001 as CEO under Section 23 of the Wakf Act, 1995, challenges Government communications Exts.P21–P23 and related orders that fix his retirement at 56 years, arguing that pre-amendment rules governed his tenure and that the retirement age of 58 fixed by the Kerala Waqf Board Regulations should apply to a CEO appointed directly by the Government. The petition traces the evolution of the post’s tenure: initial appointment under unamended Section 23, the 2013 amendment altering appointment to a deputation model, and the amended retirement age. It contends that the 56-year retirement age is either inapplicable to those appointed by direct recruitment or improperly derived from the deputation framework. Respondents rely on the 2013 amendment, the distinction between Section 23 and Section 24, and the power of the State to prescribe terms of service. The Court scrutinises the amendment’s reach, the applicability of Board regulations to the CEO, and the prescription of retirement age by the Government. Ultimately, it holds that the 56-year retirement age applies to the petitioner thus dismissing the petition. The court notes the interplay between regulations and statutory amendments and finds no illegality in the Government’s action.

Provisions of Law Cited

Wakf Act, 1995 – Section 23Wakf Act, 1995 – Section 23(1) & (2)Wakf Act, 1995 – Section 24Kerala Waqf Rules, 1996 – Rule 63Kerala Waqf Rules, 1996 – Rule 64(1) & 64(2)(c)Kerala Waqf Board Regulations, 2016Wakf Act, 1995 – Section 3(l)Wakf Act, 1995 – Sections 109 & 110Amendment to Section 23 (2013)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he was appointed as Chief Executive Officer under unamended Section 23 and that the tenure and retirement must follow the Kerala Waqf Rules and Board Regulations fixing 58 years; the 2013 amendment, which prescribes retirement at 56 and deputation-based appointment, should not apply to a directly recruited CEO. He argues the earlier rules (and a Board resolution extending 58) govern his service and that Exts.P21–P23 lack statutory basis where no rule prescribes tenure; reliance is placed on precedents like Kavirajan and Abraham Kuruvilla to justify continued service till 58. The petition asserts mala fide and extraneous considerations behind the 56-year fixation and emphasizes that the amended provisions should not retroactively alter the rights of incumbents appointed before the amendment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the 2013 amendment to Section 23 changed the appointment process to a deputation model and fixed the term/conditions of service as prescribed by the Government; Rule 63(1) and the deputation framework apply, making the 56-year retirement applicable to CEOs appointed by the Government; they contend the Regulations (which apply to Board employees) do not bind the CEO, but the government has the authority to fix the retirement age by rule; the petitioner, being a CEO appointed under Section 23, is governed by the prescriptions under the amended statute and the Government’s orders (Exts.P21–P23). They rely on Abraham J. Puthumana and similar authorities to support applicability of the amended rules to incumbents and argue lack of illegality in the Government’s action.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
R. Kavirajan and others v. Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd.	2007 (2) KHC 389	Mentioned Only	Cited to support pre-amendment retirement age arguments but not adopted in the final holding.
Abraham Kuruvilla (Dr.) v. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology and others	2013 (4) KHC 40	Mentioned Only	Cited for the same pre-amendment retirement age argument; not followed in the final decision.
Abraham J. Puthumana v. State of Kerala	2019 (2) KHC SN 23	Mentioned Only	Cited regarding applicability of amended Rule 63; not adopted by the Court in its ultimate ruling.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against B. Mohammed Jamal v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.25822 OF 2020(C)** ## **PETITIONER:** **B. MOHAMMED JAMAL AGED 55 YEARS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD, VIP ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**REVENUE (F) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**| |**2**|**THE KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD**| ||**HEAD OFFICE, VIP ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.**| |**3**|**THE CHAIRPERSON**| ||**THE KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD,**| ||**VIP ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.**| |**4**|**NASSIR MANAYIL**| ||**GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA WAQF SAMRAKSHNAVEDI,**| ||**(REG.NO.EMK/TC/604/2012) DOOR NO.SRA/114, CRASH**| ||**ROAD, THRIKKAKARA, COCHIN-682 921.**| **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU (SR.) R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD R2-3 BY ADV. SMT.GAYATHRI POTI R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.U.ZIYAD R4 BY ADV. SMT.RAMEENA.P.K.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1101-2021, THE COURT ON 04-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 2 ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =** ## **W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4[th] day of February, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** - 1.The substantial issue which arises for consideration in the writ petition is with regard to the right of the petitioner, who was appointed as Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala Waqf Board to continue in service until he attains the age of 58 years. The petitioner has raised a challenge to Exhibits P13 to P17 orders and communications as also Exhibit P23 order of the Government. - 2.Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Waqf Board, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent. - 3.It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board by Ext.P1 order dated W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 3 13.06.2001 in accordance with provisions of Section 23 of the Wakf Act, 1995. By Ext.P2 notification dated 20.06.2001, the contract appointment of the previous Executive Officer was terminated and the petitioner was appointed under Section 23 of the Wakf Act, 1995 read with Rule 63 and sub-rules 1 and 2(c) of Rule 64 of the Kerala Wakf Rules, 1996. It is submitted that Section 23(2) of the Act provides that the term of office and other conditions of service of the Chief Executive Officer shall be as may by prescribed. Rule 63 of the Kerala Waqf Rules, 1996 provides that the Chief Executive Officer appointed by direct recruitment shall be eligible for pay and allowances as admissible to an Additional Secretary to the Government. It is submitted that the petitioner was permitted to draw the pay and allowances applicable to the cadre of Deputy Secretary by Ext.P3 order dated 10.06.2002. TA, leave etc was to be governed by Rule 66 of the Waqf Rules. The Board was required to submit specific recommendations as to the Provident Fund and Pension eligibility of the CEO. Ext.P4 reply was given requesting that the provisions of the Waqf Rules may be made applicable to the post of Chief Executive W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 4 Officer recruited directly by the Government. It is submitted that the Waqf Board by Ext.P6 had resolved that the provisions contained in the Kerala Waqf Board Regulations, 2016 which are applicable to the other employees of the Board should be made applicable to the Chief Executive Officer appointed directly by the Government also in the matter of Retirement, Pension, Provident Fund. Gratuity etc. It is submitted that on the basis of the said decision of the Waqf Board, the previous Secretary was allowed to continue till he attained the age of 58 years on the basis of the retirement age of other employees of the Board as fixed by the Regulations. It is stated that while so, the 4[th] respondent who had a personal grudge against the petitioner filed a complaint before the Chairperson on 05.10.2020 as well as the Government and a report was called for by the Government from the Board. By Ext.P17 dated 01.11.2020, the Chairperson informed the Government that the petitioner would attain the age of 56 years on 21.11.2020 and should retire on attaining the said age. It is submitted that though the petitioner submitted Ext.P18 representation and Ext.P19 letter to the Government, action was taken to W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 5 terminate the services of the petitioner at which time, he approached this Court relying on Ext.P20 Regulations. While so, Ext.P21 reply was given by the 1[st] respondent to Ext.P17 proposal stating that Rule 63 was amended and that a CEO was liable to be appointed in terms of the amended Rule by deputation. Further Ext.P22 communication was also issued by the 1[st] respondent stating that the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer is to a nominated post and that the regulations have no application. Thereafter, Ext.P23 order dated 04.12.2020 was issued. It is stated therein that sub section (1) of Section 23 of the Waqf Act, 1995 underwent an amendment from 01.11.2013 and that the appointment of CEO was to be made by deputation from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government. It is stated that after considering the amended provision, the Government feel it necessary to make a fresh appointment in accordance with the legislative intention in the amendment of the Waqf Act. The Government had, therefore, fixed the term of the petitioner to be terminable on 30.11.2020, the last day of the month in which he attained the age of 56 years. W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 6 4.The petitioner contends that Exts.P21 to P23 have no legal sanctity, in the absence of statutory rules prescribing the tenure or age of superannuation of a CEO appointed under Section 23 of the Act. It is further submitted that the action of the Government is vitiated by extraneous consideration and that the fixing of the retirement age as 56 years allegedly on the basis of an amendment carried out by the Central Government in 2013 is vitiated by mala fide and extraneous considerations. It is submitted that the earlier Rules framed under the 1954 Act, which are produced as Ext.P24 clearly provide for retirement of the CEO at the age of 58 years. It is submitted that even going by the amendment carried out to Rule 63 of the Kerala Waqf Rules, the retirement age of 56 years would apply only to those persons appointed by deputation, as provided by the amended provisions of Section 23. It is submitted that since the petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment and was admittedly an employee of the Waqf Board, the provisions of the regulations are applied to him and he is entitled to continue till he attained the age of 58 years. W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 7 - 5.The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **R. Kavirajan** **and others vs. Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd.** (2007 (2) KHC 389) and **Abraham Kuruvilla (Dr.) and another v. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology and others** [2013 (4) KHC 40] in support of the contention that the petitioner who was appointed in terms of the pre-amended Section 23 of the Act is eligible to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation, as provided in the regulations. 6.A statement has been filed by the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents relies on the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and seeks to draw a distinction between the two. Section 23 before its amendment in 2013 provided for the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer by the State Government. The amendment in 2013 provides that the Chief Executive Officer W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 8 shall be appointed from a panel of two names suggested by the Board, who shall not be below rank of Deputy Secretary to the State Government and in case of non availability of a Muslim Officer of that rank, a Muslim Officer of equivalent rank appointed on deputation. Section 23(2) specifically provides that the term of office and other conditions of service of the Chief Executive Officer shall be as may be prescribed. 'Prescribed' in terms of the Waqf Act means prescribed by Rules made by the State Government [Section 3(l)]. Section 24, in contradistinction, provides for officers and other employees of the Board. Section 24(2) provides that the appointment of officers and other employees, their term of office and conditions of service shall be such as may be provided by regulations. It is, therefore, contended that the regulations are specifically applicable to the employees alone and have no application whatsoever to the Chief Executive Officer. It is submitted that the Rules have now undergone an amendment and the term of office stands fixed as 56 years and the age of retirement stands fixed as 56 years. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner, who is a Chief Executive Officer ## W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 9 appointed under Section 23 of the Waqf Act, is liable to be demit office on attaining the age as provided under the Rules which amounts prescription of the conditions of service. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the distinct powers of the State Government to make rules in terms of Section 109 of the Waqf Act and the powers of the Board to make regulations as provided in Section 110. - 7.A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the Government as well. The amendment carried out to the Rules on 16.12.2020 is also placed on record. It is specifically provided in the amendment that the retirement age of the Chief Executive Officer of the Board appointed by the Government shall be 56 years. - 8.The learned Government Pleader submits that there is absolutely no illegality in the action of the respondents and that the retirement age of the post of the Chief Executive Officer now stands fixed as 56 years. Relying on a decision of this Court in **Abraham J. Puthumana vs. State of Kerala** 10 ## W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 [2019 (2) KHC SN 23], it is contended that the amendment to Rule 63(1) would be equally applicable to the petitioner, who is holding the post under Section 23 of the Act. - 9.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment is affected to Rules 63 of the Kerala Waqf Rules. Rule 63, being a provision specifically dealing with appointment of Chief Executive Officer on deputation, it is contended that the amendment has absolutely no application to the petitioner, who is admittedly appointed by direct recruitment by the Government. - 10.The 4[th] respondent has also placed a detailed counter affidavit on record raising several allegations against the petitioner. - 11.In the light of the scope of this writ petition which is limited to the question of retirement age of the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board, I deem it unnecessary to go into the allegations raised by the 4[th] respondent and the replies of the 11 W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 petitioner. Suffice it to say that the only aspect being considered is with regard to the prescription of retirement age of the Chief Executive Officer appointed directly by the Government. 12.On an anxious consideration of the contentions raised, I find that the petitioner has been appointed as Chief Executive Officer under the unamended provisions of Section 23 of the Act. The Chief Executive Officer is defined Section 3(d) of the Wakf Act, 1995 as the Chief Executive Officer appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 23. Section 23 as it stood before the amendment in 2013 reads as follows: “23 **.Appointment of Chief Executive Officer and his term of office and other conditions of service.** (1)There shall be a Chief Executive Officer of the Board who shall be a Muslim and shall be appointed by the State Government, in consultation with the Board, by notification in the Official Gazette. (2) The term of office and other conditions of service of the Chief Executive Officer shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) The Chief Executive Officer shall be ex officio Secretary of the Board and shall be under the administrative control of the Board.” W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 12 13.Section 23(2) provided for prescription of the term of office and other conditions of service of the Chief Executive Officer. The prescription, therefore, could only have been under the Rules framed by the State Government. The Regulations framed in exercise of the powers under Section 24(2) would be applicable only to employees and officers of the Board and would have no application to the Chief Executive Officer appointed under Section 23. It is contended that by the amendment brought about to Section 23, the method of appointment of Chief Executive Officer stood amended as by deputation alone. Rule 63 also, therefore refers to an appointment of Chief Executive Officer by deputation. However, the Rules stands amended by stating that the retirement age of the Chief Executive Officer of the Board appointed by the Government shall be 56 years. In the absence of the applicability of the Regulations therefore and in view of the fact that the term of appointment and conditions of service of the Chief Executive Officer is liable to be as is prescribed by the State Government, I am of the opinion that the prescription that a Chief Executive Officer would have to W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 13 retire at the age of 56 years would apply to existing incumbent in the post of Executive Officer as well. The contention of the petitioner that the prescription would apply only to Executive Officers appointed by deputation as provided in Rule 63(1), according to me, cannot be accepted, since the petitioner is admittedly a Chief Executive Officer appointed by the Government under Section 23. - 14.In the result, the challenge raised in the writ petition must fail. The further prayer to recommend the petitioner for appointment for the post of Secretary in the Central Waqf Board also cannot be granted, since the petitioner is no longer holding the post of Chief Executive Officer of the State Board. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. **==> picture [25 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** ## **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 14 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.1378/2001/RD DATED 13.6.2001 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE G.O.(RT) NO.1411/2001/RD DATED 20.6.2001 PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF LETTER NO.84513/F3/00/RD DATED 10.6.2002 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE CEO.** **EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF REQUEST NO.B6-1317/2001 DATED 23.3.2016 SENT BY THE CEO TO THE IST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE IN FILE NO.F1/290/2017 REVENUE (F) DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.36 DATED 20.8.2019 OF THE KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD.** **EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF COVERING LETTER NO.C4-1317/2001 DATED 26.8.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE CEO TO THE IST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF SRI.ABOOTY, FORMER CEO DATED 28.3.1974.** **EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.16/72/RD DATED 17.2.1972 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.** **EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF LETTER NO.56981/F3/86/RD DATED 3.4.1987 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD ALONG WITH TYPED COPY.** W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 15 **EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.351/87/RD DATED 25.2.1987 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P12** **COPY OF LETTER NO.C4-1317/2001 DATED 9.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE CEO TO THE IST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 9.10.2020 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/T.K.HAMZA, EXMINISTER.** - **EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF LETTER NO.REV-F1/189/2020-REV DATED 30.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.REV-F1/189/2020REV DATED 30.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE CEO.** - **EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF THE REPLY VIDE LETTER NO.B6/1317/2001 DATED 4.11.2020 SENT BY THE CEO TO THE IST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.B6-1317/2001 DATED 10.11.2020 SENT BY THE CEO TO THE IST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P20 COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REGULATIONS NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON 27.1.2016.** W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 16 |**EXHIBIT P21**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER** **NO.REV.F1/189/2020-REV.DATED 20.11.2020 OF** **THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE CEO.**|| |---|---|---| |**EXHIBIT P22**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER** **NO.REV.F1/231/2016-REV.DATED 30.11.2020 OF** **THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE CEO.**|| |**EXHIBIT P23**|**TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.3760/2020/RD** **DATED 4.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST** **RESPONDENT.**|| |**EXHIBIT P24**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GORT** **1128/71/RD DATED 26.11.1971 REGARDING** **AMENDMENTS TO THE KERALA WAQF BOARD RULES,** **1966 FRAMED UNDER THE 1954 ACT.**|| |**EXHIBIT P25**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL** **NO.4761548/2020/REV (F) DATED 21.11.2020** **BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST** **RESPONDENT.**|| |**EXHIBIT P26**|**TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.4139/03/RD** **DATED 24.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT**|| |**EXHIBIT P27**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER** **NO.3248/FI/2016/RD DATED 7.9.2016 ISSUED** **BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.**|| |**EXHIBIT P28**|**TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.4486/2016/RD** **DATED 25.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT**|| |**EXHIBIT P29**|**TRUE COPY OF THE VACANCY NOTICE ISSUED BY** **THE UNDER SECRETARY ;(WAQF) GOVERNMENT OF** **INDIA, MINISTRY OF MINORITY AFFAIRS, NEW** **DELHI**|| |**EXHIBIT P30**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM DULY** **FILLED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF** **SECRETARY, CENTRAL WAQF COUNCIL (ON** **DEPUTATION)**|| ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2016 IN WP(C) NO.26893 OF 2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** 17 W.P.(C).No.25822 of 2020 **EXHIBIT R4(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.06.2009 IN (WPC) NO.12540/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT R4(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2008 IN WP(C) NO.5749/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C4-5465/2011 DATED 09.04.2013 OF THE KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD.** - **EXHIBIT R4(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.11.2016 IN CMP NO.2222/2016 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.** - **EXHIBIT R4(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2019 IN CMP NO.2222/2016 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.** - **EXHIBIT R4(G) THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.12.2018 IN O.P.(CRL.) NO.359/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(H) THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.VC 1/2018 DATED 26.02.2018 OF VACB, SPECIAL CELL, KOZHIKODE.** - **EXHIBIT R4(I) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.REVF1/258/2018-REV. DATED 10.05.2018 ISSUED BY REVENUE (F) DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** - **EXHIBIT R4(J) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER RT NO.3380/19/REV. DATED 22.9.2009 ISSUED BY REVENUE (F) DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** **EXHIBIT R4(K) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF FINAL REPORT DATED 30.04.2010 IN CRIME NO.294/09 OF BAKEL POLICE STATION.** TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE