High Court of KeralaDivision BenchOriginal petitions dismissed; Tribunal order up...
OP(CAT).58/2018 (Z) & OP(CAT).139/2018: Lukumanul Hakeem S.C. v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep and others / Union Territory of Lakshadweep v. Fouziya Z.V. and Lukmanul Hakeem S.C.
Case / Petition Number:OP(CAT).58/2018 (Z) & OP(CAT).139/2018
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- K. Vinod Chandran
- V. G. Arun
- Judgment Date
- 2019-11-18
- Court Decision / Holding
- We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. We dismiss the original petition, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs. The applicant, if found to be the next eligible person to be appointed in the rank list/waiting list, shall be appointed with immediate effect, subject to verification of qualifications and other requirements as per the notification.
- Final Disposition
- Original petitions dismissed; Tribunal order upheld; appointment to be made if next eligible and consistent with notification, subject to qualifications verification.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Lukumanul Hakeem S.C.
- Union Territory of Lakshadweep represented by the Administrator, Kavaratti Island, Lakshadweep
Respondents
- Union Territory of Lakshadweep represented by the Administrator, Kavaratti Island, Lakshadweep
- The Secretary, Department of Social Welfare and Tribal Affairs, Administration of UT Lakshadweep
- The Director, Department of Social Welfare and Tribal Affairs, Administration of UT Lakshadweep
- Fouziya Z.V. W/o Abdul Shukoor M.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. SaiBy Jose Kidangoor
- • Sri. Benny Antony PareL
- • Sri. N.B. Balachandran
- • Sri. Mathews Raju
- • Smt. Sibha
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. Manu.S, CGC
- • Smt. Rekha Vasudevan
- • Sri. Benny Antony PareL
- • Sri. Mathews Raju
- • Sri. P.M. Mohammed Salih
- • Sri. T.M. Muhammed Hafees
- • Sri. Parvathy Vijayan
- • Sri. Saiby Jose Kidangoor
- • Smt. Sibha
Case Synopsis & Summary
A scheduled tribe candidate challenged the selection of an open post on the ground that the applicant was beyond the age limit under the recruitment rules applicable to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The tribunal had ruled in favour of the ST candidate in OA 145/2017, which the administration and the successful candidate challenged. The court examined whether the age relaxation announced by central orders could be incorporated into local recruitment rules for Lakshadweep posts. It noted that Annexure A1 (1998) introduced an age relaxation by two years for direct recruitment under central norms, and Annexure A2 (2014) reflects the Lakshadweep Recruitment Rules for the post of Social Welfare Inspector with an upper age of 30 and a specific ST relaxation, five years. The administration argued that the relaxation was a general measure and that Lakshadweep still had to follow its own recruitment rules; the petitioner argued that the government order should apply across the board. The court held that such relaxations, if intended, must be incorporated in the Recruitment Rules and notified; post-notification relaxation cannot be ad hocly granted to a single candidate. It relied on Bank of India, Kochi v. Aarya K. Babu to stress that relaxations must be in rules, not in case-by-case notifications. Ultimately, the court did not interfere with the tribunal’s order and dismissed the petitions, with costs, while leaving open a potential appointment if the next eligible candidate meets the notification criteria.
Provisions of Law Cited
Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age Limit for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998Office Memorandum No.36017/1/2004-ESTT(RES) dated 05/07/2005Notification F.No.02/01/2013-SWTA dated 04/03/2014Notification No.12/01/2013-SWDA dated 04/03/2014Caste Certificate provisions (as referenced in Annexure A4)
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Age relaxation must be incorporated in Recruitment Rules and corresponding notifications; ad hoc relaxation cannot override statutory recruitment provisions.
- If a relaxation is to be given, it should be provided for in the Recruitment Rules and specifically mentioned in the notification; relaxation outside this framework is impermissible.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The applicant contends that while there existed central measures enhancing the upper age limit for direct recruitment, Lakshadweep’s recruitment rules and the notifications must reflect any such relaxation. Annexure A2 (2014) shows Lakshadweep-specific age limits for direct recruits (20-30) with ST relaxation of five years; however, the 2014 rules did not incorporate the central two-year enhancement. The petition argues relaxation cannot be inferred or introduced ad hoc and must be integrated into recruitment rules and the notification, else applicants who were eligible under the rules could be deprived. The applicant points to the need for consistency with central orders and the Bank of India decision that relaxations must be clearly provided in recruitment norms.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that age relaxation by central orders is not automatically applicable without incorporation into Lakshadweep’s recruitment rules and notification. They argue the 2014 recruitment rules set an upper age of 30 for direct recruitment, with ST relaxation, and that the central two-year enhancement cannot override Lakshadweep’s posted rules if not reflected in the notification. They rely on established jurisprudence that relaxation cannot be granted in isolation of the recruitment framework and that the challenge should fail as relaxation was never incorporated in the Lakshadweep Recruitment Rules or notification.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom | (2017) 9 SCC 478 | Distinguished | The court cites this case to illustrate a principle but explicitly states that it has no application to the present case because the relaxation cannot be granted ad hoc and must be embedded in recruitment rules and notifications. |
| Bank of India, Kochi v. Aarya K.Babu | (2019) 8 SCC 587 | Positive | Used to support the proposition that any relaxation must be incorporated in the Recruitment Rules and notification; ad hoc relaxations inconsistent with the notification cannot be adopted. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 OP(CAT).58/2018 (Z) & OP(CAT).139/2018: Lukumanul Hakeem S.C. v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep and others / Union Territory of Lakshadweep v. Fouziya Z.V. and Lukmanul Hakeem S.C. 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 MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1941**
**OP (CAT).No.58 OF 2018(Z)**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 145/2017 DATED 28-02-2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
**LUKUMANUL HAKEEM S.C AGED 32, S/O. (LATE) HAMZKOYA S.C. MADEENA MANZIL HOUSE, KADMAT ISLAND, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL SRI.N.B.BALACHANDRAN SRI.MATHEWS RAJU SMT.S.SIBHA**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
- **1 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, KAVARATTI ISLAND - 682 555, LAKSHADWEEP.**
- **2 THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS, ADMINISTRATION OF UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP - 682 555.**
- **3 THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS, ADMINISTRATION OF UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP - 682 555.**
- **4 FOUZIYA. Z.V. W/O. ABDUL SHUKOOR. M., AGED 34 YEARS, AMINI ISLAND, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 555.**
_**OP(CAT).58 & 139/18**_ 2
**R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.MANU.S, CGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP R4 BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN**
**THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).139/2018(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
_**OP(CAT).58 & 139/18**_
3
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
## **&**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1941**
**OP (CAT).No.139 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 145/2017 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
- **1 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, KAVARATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP 682 555**
- **2 THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS,ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP 682 555**
- **3 THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS,ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,KAVARATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP 682 555.**
- **BY ADV. SRI.MANU.S, CGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
- **1 FOUZIYA Z.V. W/O. ABDUL SHUKOOR M,AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT ZEENATH VEEDU,AMINI ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP 682 552.**
_**OP(CAT).58 & 139/18**_
4
**2 LUKMANNUL HAKKEEM S.C MADEENA MANZIL, KADMAT ISLAND,LAKSHADWEEP 682 556.**
**R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL R1 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS RAJU R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SALIH R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.MUHAMED HAFEES R1 BY ADV. KUM.PARVATHY VIJAYAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR R1 BY ADV. SMT.S.SIBHA**
**OTHER PRESENT:**
**SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN**
**THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).58/2018(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
_**OP(CAT).58 & 139/18**_
5
## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN & V.G.ARUN, JJ.**
## **----------------------------------------------O.P(CAT).Nos. 58 & 139 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of November, 2019**
## **JUDGMENT**
## _**Vinod Chandran, J.**_
A scheduled tribe candidate challenged the selection of an open candidate on the ground that he is beyond the age limit prescribed under the Recruitment Rules as also the notification for selection. The Tribunal found in favour of the scheduled tribe candidate, which is challenged by both the Administration of Union Territory of Lakshadweep and the successful candidate. We refer to the parties and annexures from their status in the original application.
2. Admittedly, the 4[th] respondent was 32 years old when the selection was conducted. The learned Counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep rely on Annexure A1 notification dated 21.12.1998 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training). Therein, by clause 3, there was an enhancement in the upper age limit by two years with respect to recruitment by direct open competitive examination to the Central Civil Services and Civil posts specified in
_**OP(CAT).58 & 139/18**_
6
the recruitment rules on the date of commencement of the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age-limit for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998. Direct open competitive examination means that conducted by the UPSC, SSC or any other authority under the Central Government. It was also provided by clause 4 that all the regulations relating to the method of recruitment to the Central Civil Services and civil posts under the Union including those in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department shall stand amended to the extent it provided for in Rule 3, thus incorporating the enhancement of maximum age in all such rules.
3. Again, Sri. S. Manu, the learned Standing Counsel points out that by Office Memorandum dated 27.3.2010, the same was reiterated by the Ministry. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the official respondents and the party respondents that there is nothing in Annexure A1 or the O.M of 2012 to show that the enhancement is a one time measure. It is also argued that the posts under the Union Territory of Lakshadweep also would be civil posts and Annexure A1 was specifically marked to all Union Territories also.
4. We are of the opinion that we need not go into the question whether the enhancement of age was a one time measure or not. We assume that it applies across the board. Even if it is so assumed, we have to notice that Annexure A2 dated 4.3.2014 is a notification
_**OP(CAT).58 & 139/18**_
7
brought out by the Administrator of the Union Territory and it is the Recruitment Rules for the post of Social Welfare Inspector in the Department of Social Welfare and Tribal Affairs in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The rules specifically speak of an age limit for direct recruits and the upper age limit is 30 years. Relaxation is applied for Government servants, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates, Ex-Servicemen and other special categories of persons. Admittedly, the relaxation for ST candidates is five years. The applicant is within the age limit prescribed for ST candidates. We further notice that the notification issued at Annexure A5 also speaks of the age limit of 20 to 30 years for direct recruits from the open category. Hence, though the Central Government had directed enhancement of age limit prescribed by two years, obviously the Administrator did not bring such a provision when the Rules were framed in 2014. The notification was also in accordance with the Rules. After the selection process, there could be no exemption granted to a particular person based on a Government order which was never incorporated in the Recruitment Rules.
5. The learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent also had a contention that the applicant cannot turn around and challenge the selection after having participated in it, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in _**D.Sarojakumari v. R.Helen Thilakom**_ [(2017) 9
_**OP(CAT).58 & 139/18**_
8
SCC 478]. The said principle has no application here, since the successful candidate did not satisfy the age limit as per the notification itself. We also notice _**Bank of India, Kochi v. Aarya K.Babu**_ [(2019) 8 SCC 587] in which a selected candidate, who had a qualification which was not there in the notification, was found to be ineligible to be considered for appointment, despite the fact that the specific qualification in the notification was not available anywhere in India and the qualification of the said successful candidate was incorporated in the subsequent notifications. The Honourable Supreme Court found that if the specific qualification was included in the notification, then many other persons who had such qualification would have also applied under the notification. They being deprived of such right to apply, it will not be proper for a person who did not have the qualifications specified in the notification to be considered for selection and appointment. Following the above dictum it has to be found that if any relaxation was to be applied it should have been incorporated in the Recruitment Rules and specifically noticed in the notification for application. The Administration could not have made a relaxation in the case of one particular candidate when the notification did not provide for such a specific relaxation.
6. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. We dismiss the original petition, leaving the parties to suffer their
_**OP(CAT).58 & 139/18**_
9
respective costs. The applicant, if found to be the next eligible person to be appointed in the rank list/waiting list, shall be appointed with immediate effect, however, subject to verification of the qualifications and other requirements as per the notification.
Sd/-
## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
**JUDGE**
**Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE**
_vgsx_
_**OP(CAT).58 & 139/18**_
10
## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 58/2018**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
|**ANNEXURE A1**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES**|
|---|---|
||**AND CIVIL POSTS (UPPER AGE LIMIT FOR DIRECT**|
||**RECRUITMENT) RULES 1998 DATED 21/12/1998.**|
|**ANNEXURE A2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION**|
||**F.NO.02/01/2013-SWTA ISSUED BY THE 1ST**|
||**RESPONDENT DATED 04/03/2014.**|
|**ANNEXURE A3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM**|
||**NO.36017/1/2004-ESTT(RES) ISSUED BY THE**|
||**DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND TRAINING DATED**|
||**05/07/2005.**|
|**ANNEXURE A4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE**|
||**F.NO.15/4/97-SDO OF 4TH RESPONDENT**|
||**19/06/1997.**|
|**ANNEXURE A5**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE F.NO.08/01/2013-**|
||**SWTA/474 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED**|
||**31/08/2015.**|
|**ANNEXURE A6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR**|
||**F.NO.08/01/2013-SWTA/600 ALONG WITH TH**|
||**CHECK LIST ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT**|
||**DATED 12/11/2015.**|
|**ANNEXURE A7**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE F.NO.08/01/2013-**|
||**SWTA/273 ALONG WITH CHECK LIST ISSUED BY**|
||**THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19/05/2016.**|
|**ANNEXURE A8**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE F.NO.08/01/2013-**|
||**SWTA/343 ALONG WITH THE CHECK LIST ISSUED**|
||**BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21/06/2016.**|
|**ANNEXURE A9**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR**|
||**F.NO.08/01/2013-SWTA/56 ISSUED BY THE 3RD**|
||**RESPONDENT DATED 02/02/2017.**|
|**ANNEXURE A10**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE FILE NOTING AS OBTAINED**|
||**UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED**|
||**20/06/2016.**|
|**ANNEXURE A11**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED**|
||**BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT**|
||**DATED 17/02/2017.**|
_**OP(CAT).58 & 139/18**_
11
|**ANNEXURE A12**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED**|
|---|---|
||**BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT**|
||**DATED 17/02/2017.**|
|**ANNEXURE R1(A)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE FILE PAGE 32**|
||**PARAGRAPH 201 DATED 20/06/2016.**|
|**ANNEXURE R1(B)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION**|
||**NO.15012/6/98-ESTT(D) ISSUED BY THE**|
||**GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,**|
||**PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT**|
||**OF PERSONNEL DATED 21/12/1998.**|
|**ANNEXURE R1(C)**|**A TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION**|
||**F.NO.12/01/2013-SWDA ISSUED BY THE**|
||**ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERRITORY OF**|
||**LAKSHADWEEP (DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE**|
||**AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS) DATED 04/03/2014.**|
|**ANNEXURE A13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.**|
||**43013/2/95-ESTS(SCT) ISSUED BY THE**|
||**DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING DATED**|
||**25/01/1995.**|
|**ANNEXURE A14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F. NO.52/30/72-ANL**|
||**DATED 27/09/1972 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY**|
||**SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED**|
||**27/09/1972.**|
|**EXHIBIT P1**|**A TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO. 181/000145 OF 2017**|
||**FILED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE**|
||**PETITIONER AGAINST A6 CIRCULAR.**|
|**EXHIBIT P3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND OBJECTION FILED**|
||**BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST A7 FINAL CHECK**|
||**LIST.**|
|**EXHIBIT P4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE FROM 3RD**|
||**RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.**|
|**EXHIBIT P5**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE**|
||**PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT ATTACHING R1(B)**|
||**NOTIFICATION.**|
|**EXHIBIT P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF WRITTEN TEST**|
||**ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P7**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WITH REGARD TO**|
||**INTERVIEW ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.**|
_**OP(CAT).58 & 139/18**_
12
**EXHIBIT P8**
**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3.**
**EXHIBIT P9**
**A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPLY STATEMENT BY THE PETITIONER.**
**EXHIBIT P10**
**A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT.**
**EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**
**EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.**
**EXHIBIT P13**
**A TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.**
_**OP(CAT).58 & 139/18**_
13
## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 139/2018**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR F. NO.8/1/2013-SW AND TA /56 DATED 02/02/2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES AND CIVIL POST (UPPER AGE LIMIT FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT) RULES, 1998. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION F.NO.12/01/2013-SWTA DATED 04/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.36017/1/2004ESTT(RES) DATED 05/07/2005 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE DATED 19/06/1997 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, AMINI ISLAND. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE F. NO.8/1/2013SWTA/474 DATED 31/08/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR F.NO.8/1/2013SWTA/600 DATED 12/11/2015 ALONG WITH TH CHECKLIST ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE F.NO.8/1/2013SWTA/273 DATED 19/05/2016 ALONG WITH THE CHECKLIST ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE F.NO.8/1/2013SWTA/343 DATED 21/06/2016 ALONG WITH THE CHECKLIST ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE FILE NOTING AS OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/02/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/02/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**
_**OP(CAT).58 & 139/18**_
14
|**ANNEXURE R1(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE FILE PAGE 32**|
|---|---|
||**PARAGRAPH 201.**|
|**ANNEXURE R1(B)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION**|
||**NO.15012/6/98-ESTT(D) DATED 21/12/1998**|
||**ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY**|
||**OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND**|
||**PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL.**|
|**ANNEXURE R1(C)**|**TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION F.NO.12/01/2013**|
||**SWDA DATED 04/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE**|
||**ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERRITORY OF**|
||**LAKSHADWEEP, (DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE**|
||**AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS).**|
|**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION (OA**|
||**NO. 145/2017) FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT**|
||**BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,**|
||**ERNAKULAM BENCH WITH ANNEXURES.**|
|**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT WITH**|
||**ANNEXURES FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN**|
|**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF THE 4TH**|
||**RESPONDENT**|
|**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE 1ST**|
||**RESPONDENT**|
|**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE CAT**|
||**DATED 28-02-2018 IN OA 145/2017.**|