Jobin Maruthippparambil v. Viswanathan S. and others

**OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 1** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2020/12TH PHALGUNA 1941** **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN RA(EKM) NO.20/2019 IN OA (EKM) 1148/2017 DATED 26-10-2017 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER:** **JOBIN MARUTHIPPARAMBIL, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.JOHN.T.J., JOBIN COTTAGE, KOOMANKULAM P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 123, MOB. 7907762155.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.V.VARGHESE SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.K.N.REMYA SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SHRI.VISHNU V.K. KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 VISWANATHAN.S., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.SUDHAKARAN.G., SENIOR CLERK, ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA VEEDU, THETTI KULAM, MOONGODE POST, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA695 144. 2 PRADEEP KUMAR.T.V., AGED 44 YEARS S/O.K.,THANKAPPAN, REVENUE INSPECTOR, CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SARASWATHY MANDIRAM, PULARI NAGAR 234,** ## **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 2** **KILIKOLLOOR P.O., PUNTHALATHAZHAM, KOLLAM-691 004, KERALA.** - **3 SREERAJ.M.S., AGED 33 YEARS** **S/O.SREEKANDAN NAIR, UPPER DIVISION TYPIST, VARKALA MUNCIIPALITY, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT CHOTHY, MULLARAMCODU, MANAMBOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 611, KERALA.** - **4 PRASAD.E.N., AGED 48 YEARS** - **S/O.NARAYANAN ASARY, SENIOR CLERK, CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT EERAPLACKAL HOUSE, NEELIPILAVU, CHITTAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 663, KERALA.** - **5 SAJAN.P.D., AGED 40 YEARS** - **S/O.P.J.DEVASSY, SENIOR CLERK, KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, COCHIN-682 011, RESIDING AT PADINJATTUMMURI HOUSE, VADUTHALA P.O., COCHIN-682 023, KERALA.** - **6 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF 3 GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 001.** - **7 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, KERALA.** - **8 VISHNU.R., AGED 33 YEARS** **S/O.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURACKAL VEEDU, S.R.P.MARKET P.O., THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, KERALA-690 539.** - **9 SMT.RAJIMOL.V., AGED 36 YEARS** **U.D.CLERK, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003, (ADDL.R3 AND R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.07.2017 IN MA(EKM) 1294/2017), KERALA.** - **10 SRI.PRAVEEN VASU, AGED 36 YEARS** **S/O.THE LATE A VASU, ERAPPANANAL, RAJAKKADU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 566, KERALA.** **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 3** **11 AJAY RAJ.S., AGED 27 YEARS S/O.SOMARAJAN, SYAM NIVAS, ELAMADU P.O., AMBALAMUKKU, KOLLAM-691 533, (ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.5TH AND 6TH RESPONDENTS AS PER ORDER DATED 30.08.2017 IN MA(EKM) 1564/2017 AND MA(EKM) 1562/2017 RESPECTIVELY), KERALA.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.** **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.GP SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-02-2020, THE COURT ON 2.3.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN & P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JJ** --------------------------------------------------------------------O.P(KAT) No.276 of 2019 -------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of March, 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J** Petitioner is the review petitioner in RA (EKM) No.20/2019 in O.A.(EKM) No.1148/2017. The above review application was filed by the petitioner to review the judgment dated 26.10.2017 in O.A(EKM) 1148/2017. 2. O.A.(EKM) 1148/2017 was filed by the employees in the Municipal Common Service who are eligible for appointment as Municipal Secretary Gr.III as per the Kerala State Urban Affairs Service Special Rules, 2010 (herein after called as 'Special Rules'). The conditions of service including the method of appointment and qualification for appointment to the post of Municipal Commissioner Gr.II is governed by the Special Rules issued by the Government as per G.O. dated 18.5.2010 published in the Gazette dated 26.5.2010. 3. The category of Municipal Secretary Gr.III is included as category 5 of Rule 2 of Special Rules. The method of appointment for the post of Municipal Secretary Gr.III is laid down under Rule ## **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 5** 3. Relevant extract of the said provision is necessary for deciding the issue. Rule 3 of the Special Rules relates to the Municipal ## Secretary Gr.III along with Note 1 is extracted here under: |Municipal Secretary<br>Grade III|1|By Direct Recruitment| |---|---|---| |||OR| ||2|By Transfer from among the employees<br>of the Municipal Common service who<br>have completed 3 or more years<br>services in the posts carrying the scale<br>of pay of upper Division Clerk or in any<br>post carrying, higher scale of pay than<br>that of Upper Division Clerk.| ||3|By Transfer from among the employees<br>of Urban Affairs Department who have<br>completed the service of 3 or more<br>years in the posts carrying the scale of<br>pay of Upper Division Clerk or in any<br>post carrying higher scale of pay than<br>that of Upper Division Clerk.| |Note:-<br>(1) While filling up the posts in the cadres of Municipal Secretary<br>Gr.III a ratio of 4:3:1 shall be maintained for appointment by 1st, 2nd<br>and 3rdmethods of appointmentprescribed.||| 4. As per Rule 3, three methods of appointment are preferred for filling up the post of Municipal Secretary Gr.III. The 1[st] method is by direct recruitment from the open market. The 2[nd] method is by transfer among the employees of the Municipal Common Service who have completed three or more years service in the posts carrying the scale of pay of Upper Division Clerk or any posts ## **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 6** carrying higher scale of pay than that of Upper Division Clerk. The 3[rd] method as per the Special Rules is by transfer from among the employees of Urban Affairs Department who had completed the service of 3 or more years in the post carrying the scale of pay of Upper Division Clerk or in any post carrying higher scale of pay than that of Upper Division Clerk. Note 1 to Rule 3 of the Special Rules prescribes a ratio of 4:3:1 for appointment by 1[st] , 2[nd] and 3[rd] methods of appointment prescribed. 5. The Kerala Public Service Commission issued a notification in the Gazette dated 31.12.2014 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Municipal Secretary Gr.III by all the three methods of appointment laid down under Rule 3 of Special Rules. The notification was produced before the Tribunal as Annexure-A2. The 3 categories are notified as category Nos.625/14 to 627/14. The applicants before the Tribunal are aspirants for appointment to the post of Municipal Secretary Gr.III, by the 2[nd] method prescribed in the Special Rules which is category No.626/14. The Public Service Commission after completing the selection process published rank lists of the approved candidates found eligible and qualified for Municipal Secretary Gr.III through 3 different methods of appointment. The rank list published by the Public Service Commission is produced as Annexure-A3 before the Tribunal. The ## **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 7** applicants before the Tribunal are rank No.13, 15, 16, 21 and 23 respectively in the rank list for appointment to the post of Municipal Secretary Gr.III in category No.626/14 . The apprehension of the applicants before the Tribunal was that, the Public Service Commission without following the principle laid down in Note 1 of Rule 3 of the Special Rules, is taking steps to fill up the post of Municipal Secretary Gr.III by advising candidates from open market by direct recruitment which would result injustice to them. The gist of the argument of the applicants before the Tribunal was that, when a ratio is prescribed between different methods of appointment, the same has to be applied to the cadre strength. The applicants also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Prasad Kurian and others v K.J.Augustin and others (2008)3 SCC 529** . 6. The 1[st] respondent before the Tribunal who is the 6[th] respondent herein filed a reply statement . The relevant portion of the statement is extracted here under: 5. It is submitted that there are 31 direct recruit Municipal Secretaries, 8 Municipal Secretaries appointed by transfer from among the employees of Municipal Common Service and 3 Municipal Secretaries appointed by transfer from among the Urban Affairs Department in the cadre of Municipal Secretary Grade III on Board. In order to strictly maintain the ratio of 4:3:1 among the three different categories, backlog have to be filled up. As per Note 1 under Rule 3 of the Kerala State Urban Affairs Service Special Rules, 2010, while filling up **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 8** the post in the cadre of Municipal Secretary GradeIII a ratio of 4:3:1 shall be maintained for appointment by 1[st] , 2[nd] and 3[rd] methods of appointment prescribed. The ratio has to be applied to the number of post ie., strength in the cadre and not to the vacancies existing at the time of appointment. As per Note 3 under Rule 5 of Part II Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, whenever a ratio or percentage is fixed for different methods of recruitment/appointment to a post the number of vacancies to be filled up by candidates from each method shall be decided by applying the fixed ratio or percentage to the cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment/transfer is made and not to the vacancies, existing at that time. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Prasad Kurian and others v K.J.Augustin & others (2008)3 SCC 529)** , while interpreting Note 3 to Rule 5 of General Rules held that one has to see the cadre strength of the service and the proportion laid down in the Special Rules and that proportion has to be maintained by taking the entire cadre strength into consideration and not the vacancies. Therefore the candidates belonging to category 2 and 3 are eligible to have their due share considering the cadre strength of 54.” ## 7. The Public Service Commission also filed a reply statement. The relevant portion of the reply statement is extracted here under: As per the Note given below the method of appointment to the post of Municipal Secretary Grade III in the said rules, out of every eight appointments to category 3, four shall be made by the first method, three by the second method and the remaining one by the third method. It was clearly stated in para 3 of G.O(MS) 77/82/LA & SWD dated 23.04.82 that if no suitable candidates are available for appointment by direct recruitment by the second or third method, the remaining vacancies shall be filled up by the first **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 9** method. The Ranked List for the post was published on 29.5.2017. Now there are only 23 vacancies for the post of Municipal Secretary Gr.III and the same will be advised keeping the ratio 4:3:1. While advising candidates for the 28 vacancies reported on 6.9.2016, the list of candidates under the 2[nd] method, ie from among the employees of Municipal Common Service was exhausted and only one candidate remained in the list under the 3[rd] method ie, from among the employees of Urban Affairs Department. Hence, in accordance with the conditions specified in the Special Rules, the vacancies were filled by the 1[st] method. It is unequivocal that is no violation of Special Rules has been committed by PSC in advising candidate from the Ranked List of Municipal Secretary Gr.III in Urban Affairs Department. While working out the rotation for the previous Ranked List II and List III were exhausted and the vacancies earmarked for them were given to general category as per the conditions laid down in the Gazette Notification. There is no provision in the Special Rules to compensate the same in the next Ranked List. The contention of the petitioner is strictly against the provision in the Special Rules. 8. After going through the pleadings and contentions raised by the parties, the Tribunal found that, on invoking the ratio of 4:3:1 against the cadre strength of 54 , the 3 categories would be eligible for 27, 20 & 7 posts respectively. Taking into account the strength as on the date, it is noted by the Tribunal that, Direct Recruits appointed to the post of Municipal Secretaries are in excess of the quota allotted to them. There is dearth in the other two categories ie, the quota prescribed for employees from Municipal Common Service and employees from Urban Affairs Department. Therefore, ## **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 10** the Tribunal declared that the vacancies in existence as on date has to be filled up by invoking the above ratio strictly based on the **cadre strength.** Consequential directions were also issued by the Tribunal. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed a review petition as RA(EKM) No.20/2019. The petitioners were not parties in the Original Application. The petitioner is rank No.3 in the rank list for Direct Recruitment. His grievance is that, all the vacancies are being filled by advising and appointing candidates from the rank lists of category Nos.626/14 and 627/14. According to the petitioner, his chance for getting appointment is affected by the order passed by the Tribunal. 10. The Tribunal after hearing the review petitioner, refused to accept the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly, dismissed the review application. Against the orders of the Tribunal, this OP(KAT) is now filed. 11. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The main contention of the petitioner is that, interpretation of the Special Rules by the Tribunal to the effect that appointment to the post of Municipal Secretary Gr.III in the ratio prescribed for the 3 sources of appointment shall be with reference to the total cadre strength for the post is apparently erroneous. According to the counsel, the ## **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 11** Tribunal did not consider Note 1 under Rule 3 of the Special Rules. According to the counsel, the real intent and purport of the Special Rules as clear from the above Note is that filling up of the post of Municipal Secretary Gr.III shall not be on the basis of cadre strength but on the basis of vacancies. 12. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner at length, we are of the considered opinion that, no ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. On a reading of category 5 of Rule 3 of the Special Rules, it is clear that, there are 3 methods of appointment to the post of Municipal Secretary Gr.III. In the present case we are concerned only about the interpretation of 2[nd] clause of category 5 of Rule 3 of the Special Rules and Note 1 to Rule 3 of the Special Rules. The 2[nd] method of appointment to the post of Municipal Secretary Gr.III is by transfer from among the employees of the Municipal Common Service who have completed 3 or more years service in the posts carrying the scale of pay of Upper Division Clerk or any posts carrying higher scale of pay than that of Upper Division Clerk. Note 1 to Rule 3 says that, by filling up the **posts in the cadre** of Municipal Secretary Gr.III a ratio of 4:3:1 shall be maintained for appointment by 1[st] , 2[nd] and 3[rd] methods of appointment prescribed. Therefore, the Note 1 to Rule 3 of Special Rules is clear that the ratio is to be **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 12** maintained by filling up the **posts in the cadre** of Municipal Secretary Gr.III. On a reading of the reply submitted by the 6[th] respondent herein before the Tribunal which is extracted above, it is clear that, there are 31 direct recruit Municipal Secretaries , 8 Municipal Secretaries appointed by transfer from among the employees of Municipal Common Service and 3 Municipal Secretaries appointed by transfer from the Urban Affairs Department, now existing in the cadre of Municipal Secretary Gr.III. The cadre strength of the post of Municipal Secretary Gr.III is 54. The Government stated that, the candidates belonging to category 2 & 3 are eligible to have their due share considering the cadre strength of 54. When Note 1 of Rule 3 clearly says that the ratio is to be maintained by filling up the **posts in the cadre** of Municipal Secretary Gr.III, there is no question of appointing the candidates invoking the ratio of 4:3:1 based on vacancies. 13. The term used in Note 1 of Rule 3 is ' **posts in the cadre'** and not ' **vacancies** '. The contention of the petitioner is without properly understanding the difference between the posts and vacancies. Posts constitute a cadre and the category of posts constitute a service and the cadre strength is measured by number of posts comprising the cadre. On the other hand vacancies are vacuums in the posts which are created by retirement, promotion ## **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 13** etc. The statute stipulates that the ratio is to be invoked by filling up the posts in the cadre or in other words against the cadres strength and not by filling up the vacancies. 14. A Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in **Srikanth** **Roy & others v State of Jharkand & others (2017)1 SCC 457)** interpreted the difference between the posts and vacancies. Paragraph 24 of the above judgment is extracted here under.: 24. The High Court has overlooked the distinction between “post” and “vacancy”. If the requisite posts were already exhausted by the direct recruits against the earmarked quota for direct recruitment, merely because some vacancies occur, it would not be open to the aspiring candidates against the direct recruit quota to challenge the selection process commenced for the inservice judicial officers by promotion through limited competitive examination. The cadre strength is always measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre. The right to be considered for appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in the given cadre. The percentage of quota has to be worked out in relation to number of posts which form the cadre and has no relevance to the vacancy that would occur. This aspect has been glossed over by the High Court in the impugned judgment. Suffice it to observe that as no posts for direct recruits exists as on 30.4.2008, the challenge to the selection process to fill up the vacancy by promotion at the instance of aspiring candidates by direct recruitment cannot be countenanced.” ## 15. In **Prasad Kurian & others v. K.J.Augustin and others** **(2008)3 SCC 529** the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the Note 3 to Rule 5 of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules 1958. The ## **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 14** relevant portion of the judgment is extracted here under: The Rules of 1958 are of general nature which clearly stipulates that cadre strength has to be taken into consideration for maintaining the ratio in the Special Rules, meaning thereby that these Rules which have come into being at subsequent point of time under the Act of 1968, will hold the field and these Rules are not repugnant to the Rules of 1974. The Rules of 1974 only laid down that every fourth substantive vacancy shall be filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment and now on reading of this Note(3) along with the Rules of 1974 harmoniously then it comes to, at the time of determination of fourth substantive vacancy one has to maintain the ratio or percentage of the cadre strength of the posts to which the recruitment is made and not to the existing vacancies at that time. If we construe the whole thing in this light and read the Service Rules in a harmonious manner, then the desired result can be achieved. 16. From the above decision it is clear that KS & SSR, 1958 are of general nature which clearly stipulates that cadre strength has to be taken into consideration for maintaining the ratio in the Special Rules. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner contended that, reliance placed by the Tribunal in _**Prasad Kurian'**_ s case (supra) was erroneous in the facts of the case. According to the petitioner, the decision in _**Prasad Kurian'**_ s case says that the amendment to Rule 5 of KS & SSR,1958 by amending the statute of 1992, being of universal application, will override the provisions of the Special Rules. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the _**Prasad Kurian'**_ s case (supra) has no application at all to the facts ## **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 15** and circumstances of his case. The Special Rules that came up for consideration before the Apex Court were all framed before 5.12.1992, the date on which amendment was made to Rule 5 Part II KS & SSR 1958. According to the petitioner, the Special Rules in the instant case were framed in 2010. That is long after the amendment to Rule 5, Part II KS & SSR was effected. 17. We agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that _**Prasad Kurien**_ has no application to the facts of this case. Therein, there was an apparent conflict in the Special Rules with the General Rules. The Special Rules provided for the ratio to be applied to the vacancies. However, in the General Rules by an amendment in 1992, later to the Special Rules, Note (3) under Rule 5 was incorporated, which categorically proclaimed that whenever a ratio or percentage is fixed for different methods of recruitment for appointment, the ratio has to be applied to the cadre strength of the post. It was in such circumstance that the later General Rule was found to be applicable. In the present case, as rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Special Rules was later to the General Rules and Rule 2 in Part II of KS&SSR gives prevalence to the Special Rules if there is any provision repugnant to that rules on the General Rules. However, there is no repugnancy in the instant case. ## **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 16** 18. An identical question was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala [(2010) 4 SCC 498]** . There, the Special Rules was in 1999 and the ratio of 5:1:1:1 had to be maintained in making appointments between direct recruitment, transfer from Nurses (Homeopathy), Pharmacist (Homeopathy) and Clerks in the Homeo Department. The appointment by transfer also had to be done by a selection through the PSC and in the absence of candidates by transfer, those vacancies were to be filled up by direct recruitment from open quota and the backlog was not to be restored. In such circumstance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Special Rules would prevail over the General Rules especially going by Rule 22. We have no doubt that Special Rules would prevail if there is any conflict in the provisions. The principles as spoken of in _**Prasad Kurien**_ has to be applied only when there is a repugnancy between the General Rules and the Special Rules. In the present case no such repugnancy arise, for reason of the ratio even as per the Special Rules has to be applied to the cadre and not to the vacancies filled up. 19.Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order dated 11.6.2019 in RA(EKM) No.20/2019 in OA(EKM) No.1148/17 and final order dated 26.10.2017 in OA(EKM) No.1148/17 of the **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 17** Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam bench. Hence the OP(KAT) is dismissed. Parties to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** cms ## **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 18** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM)NO.1148/2017 BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **EXHIBIT P1 (A1) TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA STATE URBAN AFFAIRS SERVICE SPECIAL RULES, 2010.** - **EXHIBIT P1 (A2) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN THE GAZETTE DATED 31.12.2014.** - **EXHIBIT P1 (A3) TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE PSC.** - **EXHIBIT P1 (A4) TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES ISSUED AS PER G.O. DATED 23.04.1982.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA(EKM) NO.1148/2017 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA (EKM) NO.1148/2017 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 26.10.2017 IN OA(EKM) NO.1148/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RA(EKM)NO.20/2019 IN OA(EKM)1148/2017 BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **EXHIBIT P5 (RA1) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2017 IN OA(EKM)NO.1148 OF 2017 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.** - **EXHIBIT P5 (RA2) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF RANKED LIST PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) FOR THE POST OF MUNICIPAL SECRETARY GRADE-III UNDER CATEGORY NO.625/2014.** **OP(KAT).No.276 OF 2019 19** ## **EXHIBIT P6** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2019 IN RA (EKM)NO.20/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.** RESPONDENTS EXTS NIL cms /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE