MANOJ CHANDANAKKAVU v. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD; K. JITHESH v. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR** **THURSDAY,THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019/4TH MAGHA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 35048 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **MANOJ CHANDANAKKAVU AGED 42 YEARS S/O. K.P.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, PRESIDENT, ULTSAVA PUNURUDHARANA COMMITTEE, SREE PURAKKADI DEVASWOM, P.O MEENANGADI, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYNAD DISTRICT** **BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE 673006** - **2 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE.** - **3 K.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, TRUSTEE, SREE PULPALLI MURIKKANMAR DEVASWOM AND PURAKKADI DEVASWOM, P.O. PULPALLY, WAYNAD DISTRICT.** - **4 K.C.SADANANDAN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE PURAKKADI DEVASWOM.P.O. MEENANGADI, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYNAD DISTRICT.** - **5 K.JITHESH, S/O. CHANDRAN NAMBIAR, ARCHANA HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM,WAYNAD P.O, VIA MANATHAVADY, WAYNAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. R3 BY ADV.SRI.B.PRAMOD R1 & R2 BY SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD** WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-2-: ## **R5 BY ADV.SRI.V.JOHN MANI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.01.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).38471/2018, THE COURT ON 24.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-3-: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR** **THURSDAY ,THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 4TH MAGHA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 38471 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **K.JITHESH AGED 41 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN NAMBIAR, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE PURAKKADI DEVASWAM (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION), RESIDING AT ARCHANA, MANANTHAWADI, WYNAD - 670 645. BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN MANI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE MALABAR DEVASWAM BOARD**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MALABAR DEVASWOM**| ||**BOARD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 006**| |**2**|**THE COMMISSIONER,**| ||**MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANHIPALAM,**| ||**KOZHIKODE - 673 006**| |**3**|**THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,**| ||**SREE PURACKKADI DEVSWOM, PURAKKADI P.O.,**| ||**WAYANAD -673 591**| |**4**|**THE TRUSTEE,**| ||**SREE PULPPALLI DEASWOM, PUPALLY.P.O .,**| ||**WYNAD -673 591**| WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-4-: **5 MANOJ CHANDANAKKAVU, S/O.K.P.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 42 YEARS, PRESIDENT ULSAVA PUNARUDHARANA COMMITTEE, SREE PURACKKADI DEVASWOM, PURAKKADI P.O., WYNAD -673 591** **BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD** **ON 15.01.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).35048/2018, THE COURT ON** **24.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-5-: **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & N.ANIL KUMAR,JJ ------------------------------------------------------WP(C).NO. 35048 & 38471 OF 2018 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of January,2019** **J U D G M E N T** ## **N.ANIL KUMAR,J:** Common questions of law and facts arise between the same parties in the above writ petitions and therefore, we think, it is advantageous to deal with the above writ petitions jointly. The parties and proceedings are referred to as given in WP(C) No.35048/2018, except where it is separately mentioned in the given context. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8 resolution and Ext.P9 order, which reinstates the fifth respondent, Sri.K.Jithesh pending enquiry on corruption charges as the Executive Officer of the Sree Purakkadi Temple at Sulthan Bathery Taluk in Wayanad District. Fifth respondent in WP(C) 35048/2018 is the petitioner in W.P(C) No.38471/2018. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner in WP(C) No.35048/2018 is as follows:- The petitioner is the President of the Restoration/Renovation Committee of Sree Purakkadi Temple WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-6-: (hereinafter referred to as the 'temple' for short), which falls within the jurisdiction of the first respondent-Malabar Devaswom Board. The fifth respondent was the Executive Officer of the temple and following various irregularities touching the administration of the temple, he was placed under suspension. By Ext.P9 order, the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board revoked order of suspension of the fifth respondent, by reinstating him in service, which is challenged in this writ petition. The fifth respondent is a member of ' _Kuppathodu Tharavadu_ ' whose senior most member is currently the Trustee of the temple. In pursuance of the various irregularities committed by the fifth respondent, the Audit Inspector (North) of the Malabar Devaswom Board/the first respondent conducted an exhaustive enquiry and submitted an audit report before the first respondent as per Ext.P2. Accepting Ext.P2 report, the first respondent adopted Ext.P3 resolution to initiate disciplinary action against the fifth respondent. The second respondent-the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board, upon consideration of Ext.P3 in detail, found that the fifth respondent was prima facie guilty of the finding against him contained in Ext.P2. Resultantly, the fifth respondent was placed WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-7-: under suspension as per Ext.P4 order 9.4.2018. Ext.P4 was challenged before this Court by the fifth respondent by institution of WP(C) No.21579/2018. By order dated 9.7.2018, this Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the second respondent-the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board to finalise the disciplinary proceedings against the fifth respondent within three months, with a direction to the second respondent to consider whether the continued suspension of the fifth respondent is required pending finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings, as per Ext.P5. By virtue of Ext.P7, the second respondent appointed the Junior Superintendent attached to the Office of the Commissioner of Devaswom, Kozhikode as an Enquiry Officer. While so, it was suddenly decided to reinstate the fifth respondent and following Ext.P8 minutes, Ext.P9 order was issued by the second respondent reinstating the fifth respondent in service. 3. On 26.10.2018, when the case came up for consideration, this Court stayed the operation of Exts.P8 and P9 orders and also restrained the fifth respondent from taking charge as the Executive Officer of Sree Purakkadi Temple for a period of one month. WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-8-: 4. On the other hand, the fifth respondent contended that the petitioner herein- a devotee approached this Court challenging the reinstatement of the fifth respondent suppressing his rejoining duty earlier and an interim order dated 26.10.2018 (supra) was granted by this Court staying Exts.P8 and P9 orders issued by the second respondent. It is his case that pursuant to the interim order passed dated 26.10.2018, the second respondent issued an order on 29.10.2018 cancelling Ext.P8 order on the ground that Ext.P8 is stayed by this Court. Challenging the order dated 29.10.2018 issued by the second respondent cancelling Ext.P8 order, the fifth respondent filed WP(C) 38471/2018. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent contended that the reinstatement was after placing the fifth respondent for more than six months continuously under suspension and the order of suspension has not been reviewed by the disciplinary authority till date. Hence it is contended that his continued suspension is clearly illegal. 5. The fifth respondent maintained that based on Ext.P9 order, he took charge as Executive Officer of Sree Purakkadi Devaswom on 26.10.2018 at 10 am from the fourth respondent as WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-9-: per Ext.R5(a). According to him, he had already taken charge before passing the order of stay in this writ petition and the interim stay passed in the writ petition on 26.10.2018 is liable to be vacated. He further alleged that the factum of taking charge was well within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing the writ petition and the petitioner has approached this Court with ulterior motives and unclean hands. 6. In view of the contention raised by the fifth respondent, we have perused the entire records leading to the interim order passed by this Court on 26.10.2018. Ext.P9 order of the second respondent reinstating the fifth respondent was admittedly passed on 23.10.2018. The petitioner filed this writ petition (WP(C) NO.35048/2018) on 26.10.2018 with due notice to the learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents. The writ petition as per records was moved before this Court in the afternoon of 26.10.2018. The order reads as follows:- ## “O R D E R Admit. Smt.P.K.Radhika takes notice for R1 and R2. Issue urgent notice to others by speed post. There will be an interim stay as prayed for for a period of one month.” 7. It is clear from the order that interim stay of Exts.P8 and WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-10-: P9 was passed by this Court in the presence of the learned counsel for the first and second respondents. 8. The petitioner contended that the fifth respondent, on coming to know of the interim order passed by this Court on 26.10.2018, forcibly took the clerk of Purakkadi Devaswom by name Satheesan, in the night of 26.10.2018 to a lodge at Mananthavady and in the morning of 27.10.2018, the fourth respondent, who was functioning as the Executive Officer, was also brought to the lodge with the concerned registers of the first respondent and the fifth respondent thereafter manipulated the records by signing in the attendance register to make it appear as if he took charge on 26.10.2018 itself. The learned counsel for the third respondent- Trustee also supported the version of the petitioner that the clerk was forcibly taken by the fifth respondent, which fact was informed by the said clerk to the third respondentTrustee in the early morning of 27.10.2018 who immediately complained to the second respondent. Learned counsel for the third respondent also submitted that the petitioner filed complaint to the Station House Officer of Meenanangadi Police Station and the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom as per Exts.P13 and WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-11-: P14 respectively. The petitioner, on the other hand, initiated contempt of court proceedings against the fifth respondent and the same is pending before this Court as Cont.Case.(C) No.2136/2018. 9. When the matter was taken up on 7.12.2018, this Court passed an order on the same day after hearing all the parties concerned. We think, it is appropriate to reproduce the said order as it contains an interim order. “It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board that the issue with regard to the reinstatement of the petitioner, as sought for in W.P.(C) No.38471/2018 very much forms the subject matter of W.P.(C) No.35048/2018, wherein an interim order is passed permitting such reinstatement. With regard to arrears of salary as mooted in the other writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel submits that, by virtue of the directions given by this Court in Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.38398/2018, the petitioner was required to file a representation before the Board with consequential directions to have the same considered by the Board, despite which no such representation has been filed so far. The Board is required to complete the pleadings. The learned Standing Counsel adds that if the petitioner files a representation as directed in Ext.P3, the Board is very much ready to have it considered immediately, so as to redress the grievance to the permissible extent. Post all these matters on 19.12.2018.” 10. Consequent to the above order, WP(C) 38398/2018 was disposed of by this Court on 10.1.2019 directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-12-: representation submitted by the fifth respondent in WP(C) No.35048/2018 in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the fifth respondent as well as the Trustee of the temple, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months. 11. Heard Smt.Prabha.R.Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.35048/2018 and Sri.John Mani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.38471/2018 and the fifth respondent in WP(C) No.35048/2018, Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Malabar Devaswom Board, Sri.B.Pramod, the learned counsel appearing for the Trustee of Sree Pulpalli Murikkanmar Devaswom and Purakkadi Devaswom. 12. According to respondents 1 and 2, on earlier occasion, a writ petition No.2482/2017 filed by the fifth respondent seeking direction to transfer and reinstate him as Executive Officer of Sree Pulpally Devaswom and to pay arrears of salary to him, was disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to entertain his application, if such an application is filed within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and this WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-13-: Court disposed of the same within an outer limit of two months thereafter, after affording the petitioner and the Hereditary Trustee, an opportunity of being heard in the matter. However, according to the learned Standing Counsel for the Board, the fifth respondent has not submitted an application as directed; instead he submitted application only on 8.12.2018 after filing WP(C) No.38471/2018. In the statement filed, respondents 1 and 2 asserted that the fifth respondent was initially appointed as Executive Officer of Pulpally Devaswom, Wayanad District as a trainee and after successful completion of two months as trainee, he was given permanent appointment. It is further stated that while so, he had submitted an application before the Trustee to transfer him from Sree Pulpally Deaswom to Sree Purakkadi Devaswom, considering his lack of experience to administer a major temple. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that he was transferred to Purakkadi Devaswom purely on his request. Elaborating his submission, the learned Standing Counsel further submits that due to his maladministration as the Executive Officer, the Board resolved on 18.4.2017 to put curb on his free roaming, by issuing orders restricting his arbitrary action WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-14-: in dealing with Devaswom Funds and properties. Considering the audit report of the Audit Inspector(North) and Assistant Commissioner, the Board upon considering his reply to the show cause notice decided to put him under suspension and also decided to appoint Sri.K.C.Sadanandan as additional charge of Sree Purakkadi Devaswom. Pending enquiry, consequent to the order dated 9.7.2018 in WP(C) No. 21579/2018, the first respondent decided to reinstate the fifth respondent on 15.10.2018 subject to the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. Learned Standing Counsel also submitted that the fifth respondent was also appointed under the provisions of Section 100(2) (p) and (x)(ii) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1951 and as such, he has to draw salary and other allowances from the institution, where he is working. It is also submitted that the Board cannot accommodate him to any other temples under his supervisory jurisdiction, since it is also having certain legal impediments as he is an Executive Officer appointed by the Trustee, specifically for that temples under the Trusteeship and not appointed by the Board. 13. The fifth respondent was appointed as Executive Officer WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-15-: of the Pulpally Devaswom initially, as per the provisions of the scheme then in force and later he was transferred to Sree Purakkadi Devaswom on his request. It is a fact that the fifth respondent has been working as Executive Officer of Sree Purakkadi Devaswom till 28.5.2004, accepting salary as per rules up to the middle of 2016. However, he did not get any salary thereafter. Lack of fund to disburse his salary resulted in making a request for transfer by him. According to the first respondent, lack of fund to disburse salary is only the by-product of the mismanagement and maladministration of the fifth respondent and it is his responsibility to raise funds as he himself is the drawing and disbursing officer. 14. Coming back to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the fifth respondent, on 20.7.2018, a memo of charges was issued to him as herein below: - _"i. Eventhough the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act stipulates disciplinary action against erring employees, the 5[th] respondent has illegally terminated the Chief priest of the temple and conducted "swarnaprasnam" illegally._ - _ii. The 5[th] respondent has unauthorisedly withdrawn amounts from the fixed deposits of the temple and that he has resorted to_ WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 ## :-16-: _misappropriation of the same._ - _Iii. The 5[th] respondent has unauthorisedely tenanted the land of the temple for pattom._ - _iv. Without obtaining a plan or estimate and without obtaining the concurrence of the Devaswom Board, the 5[th] respondent has conducted unauthorized miscellaneous works._ - _v. The 5[th] respondent has failed in his duty to maintain the cash book, ledgers, vouchers, acquittance etc. and he has failed to produce them for the verification of the Trustee.”_ 15. The enquiry has commenced consequent to the order dated 8.10.2018 of the second respondent and the same was posted to 30.10.2018. The allegations levelled against the fifth respondent are serious in nature. Taking note of the illegality in the order of reinstatement of the fifth respondent, this Court had vide order dated 26.10.2018 granted an interim stay of the operation of Ext.P9 order of reinstatement of the fifth respondent. From the records, it is very clear that the said order was passed after hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and a copy of the interim order was delivered on the next day. Under the circumstances, it is difficult for us to believe that the fifth respondent took charge before passing the interim WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-17-: order. We cannot agree with the learned counsel for the fifth respondent that the fifth respondent took charge as contended by him. We are of the prima facie opinion that on coming to know about the interim order of this Court, it appears that the fifth respondent managed to make entries in the registers to make it appear that the fifth respondent was reinstated and was given charge on 26.10.2018 itself. 16. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances in the case, we find that there are serious allegations warranting an enquiry against the fifth respondent in this case. Pending enquiry, his continuation in service as Executive Officer is not in the interest of the Devaswom. Coming to the issue of maintainability of public interest litigation in service matters, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent heavily relied on the Division Bench decision in **Jaleel P.P.** v. **P.K.Muralikrishnan and others** [WP(C) No.22120/2011(S)] and contended that the petitioner is a stranger and he is not at all aggrieved by Exts.P8 and P9 orders issued by respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner, the President of the Restoration/ Renovation Committee of the Purakkadi Devi Temple is interested in the WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-18-: welfare of the temple directly. Hence it cannot be said that the subject matter pertains to service matter and a third party has no locus standi to initiate legal action in a court of law. 17. True, it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental enquiry initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded at the earliest. In cases where the delinquent is placed under suspension during the pendency of such enquiry, then it becomes all the more important for the employer to ensure that the enquiry is completed within the shortest time to avoid any inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee. The principle laid down in the Apex Court decision reported in **Ajay Kumar Choudhary** v. **Union of India through its Secretary and another** [(2015) 7 SCC 291] does not lay down a different proposition of law. In the said case, the Supreme Court directed that currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memo of charges is not served on the delinquent officer/employee. In this case, the memo of charges has been served on the fifth respondent and hence the legal principle cited is not attracted. In the case on hand, it is also not legally possible for this Court to WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-19-: direct the Board to accommodate the fifth respondent to any other temples under its jurisdiction as the fifth respondent is an Executive Officer appointed by the Trustee specifically for that temple under the Trusteeship and not appointed by the Board. In the interest of all concerned, it is just and proper to finalise the enquiry proceedings within a span of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and take appropriate decision by the first and second respondents, based on the enquiry report and the findings thereon. In the result, the Writ Petitions are ordered as follows:- 1. WP(C) No.35048/2018 is allowed quashing Exts.P8 and P9 orders issued by the second respondent. 2. WP(C) No.38471/2018 stands disposed of directing the first and second respondents to finalise disciplinary proceedings initiated against the fifth respondent within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and take a decision based on the enquiry report and findings thereon in accordance with law untrammelled by the findings and observations contained in this judgment. In case the disciplinary proceedings come to an end exonerating the fifth respondent (petitioner in WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-20-: WP(C) No.38471/2018) from all the charges levelled against him, the first and second respondents may consider his request for transfer to some other Devaswom sympathetically within the permissible extent. 3. We make it clear that the Enquiry Officer appointed by the second respondent in this case is free to take independent decisions based on the evidence before the Enquiry Officer uninfluenced by the observations contained in this judgment. 4. We also make it clear that the observations contained in this judgment are for the purpose of deciding this case only and the same may not be used as evidence against the fifth respondent in criminal cases, if any. **==> picture [353 x 32] intentionally omitted <==** Sd/- **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** , JUDGE sd/- **N.ANIL KUMAR** , MBS/ JUDGE WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-21-: ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35048/2018** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ODER NO.A41949/2018/MDB/K.DIS DATED 10.10.2018.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AUDIT OFFICER OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 18.1.2017.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.27 DATED 18.4.2017 OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.4.2018 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF MALABAR DEVASWOM.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.21579/2018 DATED 9.7.2018.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 20.7.2018.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF DEVASWOMS DATED 8.10.2018.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES NO.35 DATED 15.10.2018 OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.** WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-22-: ## **EXHIBIT P9** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF MALABAR DEVASWOM DATED 23.10.2018.** **EXHIBIT P10** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.18.3.2013 OF THE COMMISSIONER.** **EXHIBIT P11** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.9.2.2017 OF THE ASST.COMMISSIONER.** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORTS DTD.11.9.2015** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 27.10.2018 TO THE SUB INSPECTOR, MEENANGADI POLICE STATION.** **EXHIBIT P13A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.27.10.2018 ISSUED FROM MEENANGADI POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.27.10.2018 TO THE COMMISSIONER.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXT.R5(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.26.10.2018 FOR TAKING CHARGE AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SREE PURAKKADI DEVASWAM.** **EXT.R5(b):TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.29.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** WP(C) NOS.35048/2018 & 38471/2018 :-23-: ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38471/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4-876/03 DATED 16-3-2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-5-2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-03-2018 IN W.P(C) NO.2482 OF 2017** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF HE JUDGMENT DATED 09-07-2018 IN W.P (C) NO.21579 OF 2018** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DARED 23.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26-10-2018 FOR TAKING CHARGE AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SREE PUAKKADI DEVASWOM** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 26-102018 IN W.P(C) NO.35048 OF 2018** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-10-2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER**