OP(KAT) Nos. 259 & 262 of 2017 (A. Udayakumaran, T. Sivan, V. Balagopalan, A.P. Sailendrakumar, C. Murugan, A. Gopakumaran Nair v. State of Kerala & Kerala Public Service Commission)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **& THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 2ND POUSHA, 1943** **OP(KAT) NO. 259 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.7.2017IN O.A(EKM)NO. 654 OF 2017 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,** ## **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION:** 1 A.UDAYAKUMAR, SON OF APPUKUTTAN NAIR, AGED 53 YEARS, SECURITY GUARD (UNDER ORDERS OF TERMINATION FROM SERVICE) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT ARYA BHAVAN, ERICHALLOOR, PLAMOOTTUKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 122. 2 T. SIVAN, SON OF THE LATE THANKAPPAN, AGED 53 YEARS, SECURITY GUARD (UNDER ORDERS OF TERMINATION FROM SERVICE) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT P.M.V. NAGAR, ELLIPODU, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 013. V. BALAGOPALAN, SON OF THE LATE VELLAPPAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, SECURITY GUARD (UNDER ORDERS OF TERMINATION FROM 3 SERVICE) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SREEVINAYAKA, ATHMABODHINI, PERINGAMALA, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 042. 4 A.P. SAILENDRAKUMAR, SON OF THE LATE PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AGED 53 YEARS, SECURITY GUARD (UNDER ORDERS OF TERMINATION FROM SERVICE) SECRETARIAT, **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 2** THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SREE SHAILAM, ULIYOOR, PAZHAKUTTY P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 561. C. MURUGAN, SON OF THE LATE P. CHELLAPPAN PANICKER, AGED 57 YEARS, SECURITY GUARD (UNDER ORDERS OF 5 TERMINATION FROM SERVICE) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SREE MURUGALAYAM, MADATHUVILA, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 042. A GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SON OF THE LATE R. APPUKUTTAN NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, SECURITY GUARD (UNDER ORDERS OF 6 TERMINATION FROM SERVICE) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT MANJU BHAVAN, KUNATHU, KOOPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043. BY ADVS. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN K.JAJU BABU (SR.) ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT & ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL 1 ADMINISTRATION (SERVICES-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001. KURIAN FRANCIS, 2 AGED 50 YEARS, SON OF FRANCIS, TC11/1887, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 015. 3 RAJESH. R, **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 3** AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, GURUVIHAR,KADAKKAVUR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 306. BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.K.C.ANTONY MATHEW M.S.MOHAMMED ANSARY SMT.ANJU CLETUS JITHIN LUKOSE ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.12.2021, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).262/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 4** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 2ND POUSHA, 1943** ## **OP(KAT) NO. 262 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2017 IN O.A(EKM)NO. 1309/2015 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,** ## **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION:** ## A. UDAYAKUMAR, 1 SON OF APPUKUTTAN NAIR, AGED 53 YEARS, SECURITY GUARD (UNDER ORDER OF TERMINATION FROMSERVICE), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT ARYA BHAVAN, ERICHALLOOR,PLAMOOTTUKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 122. ## T.SIVAN, 2 SON OF THE LATE THANKAPPAN, AGED 53 YEARS,SECURITY GUARD (UNDER ORDER OF TERMINATION FROMSERVICE), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT P M V NAGAR, ELIPODU, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 013. 3 V.BALAGOPALAN, SON OF THE LATE VELLAPPAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS,SECURITY GUARD (UNDER ORDER OF TERMINATION FROMSERVICE), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SREEVINAYAKA, ATHMABODHINI,PERINGAMALA, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695 042. - 4 A.P.SAILENDRAKUMAR, SON OF THE LATE PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AGED 53 YEARS,SECURITY GUARD (UNDER ORDER OF TERMINATION FROMSERVICE), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SREE SHAILAM, ULIYOOR, PAZHAKUTTY ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 5** P.O.,NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 561. C.MURUGAN, SON OF THE LATE P CHELLAPPAN PANICKER, AGED 57 YEARS,SECURITY GUARD (UNDER ORDER OF TERMINATION FROMSERVICE), SECRETARIAT, 5 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SREE MURUGALAYAM, MADHTHUVILA,KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 042. A.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SON OF THE LATE R.APPUKUTTAN NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, SECURITY GUARD (UNDER ORDER OF TERMINATION FROMSERVICE), SECRETARIAT, 6 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT MANJU BHAVAN, KUNATHU, KOOPANAKUNNU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043. BY ADVS. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN K.JAJU BABU (SR.) ## **RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS & RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION:** KURIAN FRANCIS,AGED 52 YEARS, SON OF FRANCIS, 1 TC11/1887,NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 015. RAJESH R., AGED 44 YEARS, SON OF RAJASEKHARAN 2 NAIR,GURUVIHAR, KADAKKAVUR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 306. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO 3 GOVERNMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001. THE SECRETARY, 4 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KPSC BHAVAN,PATTOM - 695 004, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 6** KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 5 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KPSC BHAVAN,PATTOM - 695 004, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.ANTONY MATHEW SMT.ANJU CLETUS SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE SRI.M.S.MOHAMMED ANSARY SRI.P.SAMSUDIN THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.12.2021, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).259/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 7** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.** **..........................................................................** ## **O.P.(KAT) Nos.259 & 262 of 2017** _[Arising out of the impugned order dated 11.07.2017 in O.A. Nos.654 of 2017 & 1309 of 2015 on the file of the KAT, EKM Bench]_ **.................................................................** Dated this the 23[rd] day of December, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Viju Abraham, J.** Applicants in O.A. (EKM) No.654 of 2017 who are respondents 4 to 9 in O.A. (EKM) No.1309 of 2015 are the petitioners in OP (KAT) No. 259 of 2017 and in OP (KAT) No. 262 of 2017. These original petitions are filed challenging the common order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. (EKM) No.654 of 2017 & O.A. (EKM) No.1309 of 2015. 2. O.A. (EKM) 654 of 2017 is filed challenging Annexure-A14 order whereby Annexure-A9 order dated 07.12.2015 regularising the service of the petitioners as Security Guard was cancelled. O.A. (EKM) No.1309 of 2015 was filed by two persons included in the rank list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Security Guards, challenging AnnexureA4 order dated 07.12.2015 (Annexure-A9 in O.A. (EKM) No.654 of ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 8** 2017) whereby the service of the petitioners as Security Guard was regularised. 3. Since the matter in dispute in both these cases is common, we are considering and disposing of both the original petitions together. 4. Petitioners are all ex-servicemen who were appointed by the Government as Security Guards on daily wages being sponsored by the KEXCON and Sainik Welfare Board. It is the contention of the petitioners that at the time of their appointment on daily wages there was no rank list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission in existence even though notification was issued for the post of Security Guards at Secretariat and also in the office of the P.S.C. and that the rank list was published only on 16.07.2012. Even after advice was made from the said rank list, the petitioners were continuing in service on daily wages. Since the petitioners were all over-aged for any regular appointment, they submitted AnnexureA7 representation before the Government seeking regularisation of their services. Subsequently, the 1st respondent Government as per Annexure-A9 order dated 07.12.2015 regularised the services of the petitioners. While so, O.A. (EKM) No. 1309 of 2015 was filed by two **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 9** persons included in the rank list for the post of Security Guard, challenging Annexure-A9 order of regularisation, in which the petitioners were arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 to 9. While the said O.A was pending consideration, the respondent Government issued Annexure-A14 order dated 21.03.2017 whereby Annexure-A9 order dated 07.12.2015 granting regularisation was cancelled. It is challenging Annexure-A14 order issued by the respondents that the petitioners have approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. (EKM) No. 654 of 2017. 5. The Tribunal considered both the Original Applications together and by a common order dated 11.07.2017 O.A. (EKM) No. 654 of 2017 filed by the petitioners was dismissed holding that issuance of Annexure-A14 order cannot be said to be illegal and O.A. (EKM) No.1309 of 2015 was partly allowed. It is challenging the common order dated 11.07.2017 passed in both original applications that O.P. (KAT) No.259 of 2017 and O.P. (KAT) No.262 of 2017 were filed by the petitioners. 6. Heard Shri. K Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners assisted by Smt. Rekha Vasudevan, Shri. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Sr. Govt. Pleader, Shri. P. Samsudin, **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 10** learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 in O.P. (KAT) 259 of 2017 and also Shri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission. 7. The petitioners contended that Annexure-A9 order of regularisation is in accordance with law and the same was cancelled by Annexure-A14 order in an arbitrary and illegal manner. It was also contended that the dictum laid down in _**Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1**_ , does not curtail the power of the Government in invoking the power envisaged under Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR. It was also contended that as per Rule 35 of Kerala Civil Services (C. C & A) Rules 1960, the Government has power to review its own order only on application by a party and that power of review cannot be exercised in case it is not conferred under the statute. In support of the said contention, petitioners relied on the decisions in _**Patel Narshi Thekershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjun Singhhi, AIR 1970 SC 1273; Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, AIR 1978 SC 1814; Dr (Smt) Kundesh Gupta v Management Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, (1987) 4 SCC 525; Kalabharati Advertising v Heman Vimalnath Narichaniya, 2010 (3) KLT 986 (SC); Kapra Mazdoor**_ **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 11** _**Ekta Union v Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., 2005 (2) KLT 978 (SC)**_ and _**decision in W.P. (C ) No. 9390 of 2012.**_ It was also contended that even Section 20 of the Kerala General Clauses Act does not empower the Government to rescind Annexure-A9 order. In support of the said contention, the petitioners rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in _**State of Kerala vs. Madhavan Pillai, (1988) 4 SCC 669.**_ It was further contended that the Rules of Business of Government of Kerala does not empower the Government to review Annexure-A9 order. Petitioner also contended that in spite of reporting of 36 vacancies between December 2015 to March 2016 the party respondents could not secure advice and therefore the finding of the Tribunal that they lost their chance for being advised due to issuance of Annexure-A9 order is without any basis. It was also contended by the petitioners that there is no procedural irregularity in the issuance of Annexure-A9 order and that Annexure-A14 order is issued in total violation of the directions in Annexure-A13 judgment and that the termination was without following any procedure established by law. Lastly, it was contended that Annexure-A9 order issued invoking the powers under Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR is valid in law, and issuance of Annexure-A14 **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 12** order is illegal and unjust. 8. The 1st respondent Government contended that the petitioners were appointed as Security Guards on daily wages and they were permitted to continue in vacant posts till PSC hands join duty. Before engaging the petitioners on a daily wage basis there was no selection process or any open advertisement except that the candidates sponsored by KEXCON and Sainik Welfare Board were interviewed. It is based on the RTI reply provided by the petitioners and in anticipation of 25 additional posts of Security Guards which may arise on completion of Annex 2 building of Government Secretariat that the matter of regularisation was placed before the Council of Ministers and obtained approval. After the issuance of Annexure-A9 order, the matter was again put up for reconsideration in light of the fact that the tenure of the PSC rank list of Security Guard was extended till March 2016. On reconsideration, it was decided to provide posting to PSC hands in the anticipated vacancy which may arise on completion of Annex 2 building. It was also contended that Annexure-A9 order was not issued invoking Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR. Against the order of regularisation of petitioners, two cases were filed by the persons included in the Rank List as O.A. (EKM) No.1309 of 2015 and O.P. (KAT) No.187 of 2016 **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 13** and that in compliance with the direction issued by this Court, six provisional vacancies which may arise due to retrenchment of the petitioners appointed as per Annexure-A9 was reported to PSC on 28.12.2016. Several complaints were received by the Government against the regularisation of the petitioners made as per AnnexureA9 order at a time when the PSC rank list of Security Guards was in existence. Several reports were published in newspapers regarding the same and Annexure-A9 order was challenged before the court. It is in the said circumstance that the Government decided to reexamine the regularisation of the petitioners made as per AnnexureA9 order. Government is well within its powers to review its original orders. Appointment against the post of Security Guards is to be done as per the conditions in Special Rules and that there is no provision for regularising the employees engaged on a daily wage basis and that the petitioners were regularised at a time when rank list of Security Guards was in existence. The regularisation of petitioners was in total violation of the direction issued by the Apex Court in _**Umadev**_ i’s case and also against the directions issued by the Government in this regard. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the Government decided to cancel Annexure-A9 order and terminate the service of the petitioners as per Annexure- **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 14** A14 order. The Government is competent to correct mistakes at any point of time. Issuance of show cause notice to the petitioners is a futile exercise as regularisation was done by mistake and the petitioners have no legal right to continue in the post and that the Government has ample power to review its own decision as per Rule 35 of KCS (CC & A) Rules. 9. Additional respondents 2 and 3 in O.A. (EKM) No.654 of 2017 contended that the Government is empowered to review its original order as per Rule 35 of KCS (CC & A) Rules. Within two weeks from the date of issuance of Annexure-A9 order, additional respondents have filed O.A. (EKM) No.1309 of 2015 challenging the same. Further, Annexures-R2(A) and R2(B) complaints dated 26.06.2016 and 21.06.2016 respectively were submitted before the Government as against Annexure-A9 order. No notice is necessary for the termination of the petitioners as regularisation was granted with effect from 31.03.2016 i.e., the date of expiry of the PSC rank list but in fact the period of the rank list was further extended till 31.12.2016 as can be seen from Annexure-R2(C). The applicants were not selected after undergoing any written test or any other screening test and their regularisation is in total violation of the decision of the Apex Court in _**Umadev**_ i’s case. ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 15** 10. The prime question to be considered is as to whether the regularisation of the service of the petitioners as per Annexure-A9 order is in accordance with the law. Admittedly the petitioners were originally appointed as Security Guards on a daily wage basis in the years 2011 and 2012. On the date of issuance of Annexure-A9 order i.e., 07.12.2015 whereby the service of the petitioners was regularised, they have put in service on a daily wage basis for only less than 4 years. As is seen from Annexure-A14 order the Government reconsidered the matter and cancelled Annexure-A9 order of regularisation mainly for the reason that the regularisation is in violation of the mandate in _**Umadev**_ i’s case _(supra)_ . The Apex court in _**Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1**_ held that absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, **daily wage** or ad-hoc employees will go against the constitutional scheme of public employment. The only concession granted by the Apex Court was in respect of regularisation as a one time measure, the services of irregular appointees (not illegal appointments), who have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts. Para 53 of the judgment reads thus: “ _53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be_ ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 16** _cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.Narayanappa R.N.Nanjundappa and B.N.Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularity appointed, who have worked for ten years of more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme_ .” 11. The Apex Court in _**Umadevi**_ ’s case _(supra_ ) has specifically dealt with the cases of regularisation of employees who were engaged on a daily wage basis and held that in case of daily wage employees there cannot be any direction for regularisation of their services. Paragraph 55 of the judgment reads as follows: “ _55. In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes Department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the_ ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 17** _salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily-wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily-wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that the courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularisation. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularisation or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in CAs Nos. 3595-612 and those in the Commercial Taxes_ ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 18** _Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them._ ” _(underline supplied)_ 12. The issue regarding regularisation of daily wage employees again came up for consideration before the Apex Court in _**Satya Prakash and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, (2010)**_ _**4 SCC 179**_ wherein it was held that daily wage employees are not entitled to the one-time regularisation granted in _**Umadev**_ **i** ’s case. A Division Bench of this Court in _**Joy Joseph v. Institute of Human Resources, 2021 (2) KLT 309**_ held that as the law laid down by the Supreme Court is the law of the land, any deviation there from should be deprecated and therefore there can be no regularisation in violation of the decision in _**Umadevi's**_ case. In view of the above, the regularisation granted as per Annexure-A9 order to the petitioners who were engaged on a daily wage basis is against law and therefore liable to be cancelled. 13. The further contention of the petitioner is that AnnexureA9 order of regularisation is issued by the Government invoking the powers under Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR 1958 and contended that the dictum laid down in _**Umadevi**_ ’s case _(supra_ ) will not curtail **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 19** the power of Government to utilize the power under Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR in appropriate cases. It is true that as per Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR Government has the power to deal with the case of any person or persons serving in a civil capacity under the Government of Kerala or any candidate for appointment to a service in such manner as may appear to the Government to be just and equitable, notwithstanding anything contained in any Rules or Orders. But the question for consideration is as to whether such power could be exercised by the Government or such exercise of power appears to be just and equitable in the facts of the present case. Annexure-A9 order of regularisation was issued at a time when the law as regard regularisation of services has been well settled by the Apex Court in _**Umadevi**_ ’s case _(supra)_ and in the light of the same daily waged appointments could not have been regularised invoking power under Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR. The Apex Court in _**Umadevi**_ ’s case and in _**Satya Prakas**_ h’s case _(supra)_ has held in unequivocal terms that daily wage employment cannot be regularised at all in as much as such regularisation would run counter to the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is pertinent to note the opinion of the Law Department as is evident from Annexure-A28 cabinet note for reconsidering Annexure- A9 **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 20** order of regularisation in which the Law Department has categorically stated that Annexure-A9 decision was taken overlooking the opinion of the Finance Department that such regularisation will be in patent violation of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in _**Umadevi**_ ’s case and the said decision leading to Annexure-A9 regularisation order invoking the special power of the Government as provided Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR is in violation of the Rules, which does not permit regularisation of daily wage employment. Further as can be seen from Exhibit P5 reply statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent that the Government decided to reconsider Annexure-A9 order of regularisation in view of various complaints received in Government as against the same and also due to pendancy of litigations in connection with the same. Along with the reply statement filed on behalf of additional respondents 2 and 3, the complaint filed by them before the Government as against Annexure- A9 order of regularisation was produced as Annexures-R2(A) and R2 (B). It is taking into consideration the fact that Annexure-A9 order of regularisation was issued in total disregard of the Rules, the decision of the Apex Court in _**Umadev**_ i’s case _(supra_ ) and also various complaints submitted before the Government and also the pendency of various litigations ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 21** in connection with the same that the Government has taken a conscious decision to cancel Annexure-A9 order of regularisation vide Annexure-A14 order. Therefore, it is clear that the exercise of the power of the Government under Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR to issue Annexure-A9 order to regularise the services of the petitioners is absolutely against the scope and purpose for invocation of Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR. The regularisation granted as per AnnexureA9 totally goes against the Special Rules for appointment to the post and also against the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in _**Umadevi**_ ’s case _(supra)_ .The Apex Court in _**Ashok Kumar Uppal and Others v. State of Jammu Kashmir and Others, (1998) 4 SCC 179**_ and this Court in _**Koyit Joseph and Others v. Subash George and Others, 2006 KHC 755, Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala, 2014 (1) KHC 104 and Dinesh Shankar N.T. v. State of Kerala and Others, 2016 (4) KHC 627**_ and held that such power of Government cannot be exercised in a capricious and arbitrary manner so as to give undue advantage or favour to an individual employee. In view of the above, we feel that Government while issuing Annexure-A9 order has extended Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR in favour of the petitioners in a casual and arbitrary manner. Therefore, the contention of the ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 22** petitioners that the power of the Government to grant regularisation invoking Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR will not be curtailed by the decision in _**Umadev**_ i's case _(supra)_ cannot be countenanced in as much as the invocation of the power under Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR to grant regularisation in total defiance to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court is absolutely arbitrary and illegal. 14. The next issue to be considered is as to the contention of the petitioners that the Government has no power to review its original order on its own invoking Rule 35 of Kerala Civil Services (C.C & A) Rules 1960, and also that even Section 20 of the Kerala General Clauses Act does not empower the Government to rescind Annexure- A9 order of regularisation. The contention put forward by the petitioners is that the power of review of original orders as per Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services (C.C & A) Rules 1960 could be invoked only on an application by a party and that Government has no suo moto power to review its original orders. Relying on the same it is the contention of the petitioners that no complaint or any application has been filed by any party so as to invoke the power of review. But a perusal of Exhibit-P5 reply statement filed by the Government, as well as Exhibit-P7 reply statement filed by **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 23** additional respondents 2 and 3, will clearly show that there were complaints as against regularisation of petitioners as per AnnexureA9 order, including Annexures-R2(A) and R2(B) written complaint submitted by additional respondents 2 and 3 and that Government took a decision to cancel Annexure-A9 order after considering such complaints also. In view of the same, the contention of the petitioners that the Government invoked the power of review as provided in Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services (C.C & A) Rules 1960 in the absence of an application of a party is absolutely without any basis and it is only to be rejected. In view of the same, the decisions relied on by the petitioners to support the said contention cannot have any application in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. Yet another contention taken by the petitioners which needs to be addressed is that Section 20 of the Kerala General Clauses Act does not empower the Government to rescind Annexure-A9 order of regularisation. The said contention is raised on the basis that Rule 39 of Part II of KS & SSR does not cloth the Government with any power to rescind the original order in any manner less favourable to the petitioners and that there is no power to terminate the service of the petitioners under Rule 39 of Part II **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 24** KS & SSR and that in the absence of any power to rescind the original Order, Section 20 of the Kerala General Clauses Act cannot be invoked to justify issuance of Annexure- A14 order. In support of the said contention, the petitioners relied on the decision of the Apex Court in _**State of Kerala vs. Madhavan Pillai, (1988) 4 SCC 669**_ . It will be profitable to extract Section 20 of the Kerala General Clauses Act,1125 (equivalent to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897), which reads as follows: “ _20._ _**Power to make to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind orders, rules or byelaw** s:- Where, by any Act, a power to issue notifications, orders, rules, or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction, and conditions, if any, to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws so issued.”_ Going by Section 20 of the Kerala General Clauses Act, when any statute or regulation grants power to issue notification, orders, rules or bye-laws then that power include a power to add, amend, vary or rescind any notification, orders, rules or bye-laws so issued. The specific case of the petitioners is that Annexure-A9 order has been issued invoking Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR. Admittedly there is no provision in KS & SSR to rescind or vary an order passed invoking Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR and therefore in such a circumstance, the provisions of Section 20 of the Kerala General Clauses Act will **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 25** definitely come into play. Regularisation has been granted as per Annexure-A9 order invoking the power under Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR in total violation of the Rules and also against the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in _**Umadevi**_ ’s case _(supra_ ) and therefore against law. In such circumstance, the Government is empowered to cancel any such orders. Therefore, we are of the view that going by Section 20 of the Kerala General Clauses Act, the Government is well within its powers to cancel or rescind any order issued when the same is brought to the notice of the Government. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that Section 20 of the Kerala General Clauses Act does not empower the Government to rescind Annexure-A9 order in absence of any power given in KS & SSR to rescind its original orders cannot be accepted. The decision relied on by the petitioner in _**Madhavan Pillai**_ 's case _(supra)_ can have no application in the facts and circumstances of this case in as much as the apex court was dealing with a situation where sanction for opening a new unaided school was cancelled by the subsequent government and in the said decision the Apex Court only said that the general power of rescindment available to the Government under Section 20 of the Kerala General Clauses Act has to be determined in the light of the subject matter, context and the effect ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 26** of the relevant provisions of the statute. 16. The further contention of the petitioners that since there was no procedural irregularity in the issuance of Annexure-A9 order, the Government ought not to have disturbed the same, is also absolutely without any basis. Annexure-A9 order is issued in total disregard of the Rules and Procedures and also the decision of the Apex Court in _**Umadev**_ i’s case _(supra)_ . The petitioners being daily waged employees, their services could not have been regularised as per law. Therefore, issuance of Annexure-A14 order, cancelling Annexure-A9 order of regularisation is well within the power of the Government. 17. The contention of the petitioners that even Rule 20 of the Rules of Business of Government of Kerala also does not empower the Government to review the order is also without any basis. Rule 2o of the Rules of Business of Government of Kerala have no much relevance in the nature of the dispute raised by the petitioners. Rule 20 of the said Rules was relied on by the petitioners to content that Rule 20 is the only provision empowering the Government to carry out any minor deviation from the decision taken by the Council of Ministers and that the decision once rendered by the Council of ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 27** Ministers cannot be reviewed even under Rules of Business of Government of Kerala. The Government is well within its powers to correct any mistake when the same is brought to its notice and we have already found that the Government is empowered to set right any illegality and therefore issuance of Annexure-A14 order can only be viewed as a proper exercise of power by the Government. This Court examined the power of the Council of Ministers in the matter of taking decisions in _**Kunjachan v. State of Kerala, 2009 (4) KLT 648**_ and held that what is relevant and what will have to be looked into for the purpose of judicial review is only the constitutionality and the validity of the decision taken by the Government. 18. Further contention raised by the petitioners is that in spite of reporting 36 vacancies between December 2015 to March 2017 respondents could not secure any advice and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that respondents 2 and 3 have lost their chance due to regularisation of the service of petitioners is wrong. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were regularised at a time when there was a valid rank list. Moreover, the issue that was considered by the Tribunal is as to whether the petitioners who are daily waged employees are entitled for regularisation. When the matter **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 28** regarding illegal regularisation was brought to the notice of the Government it is their duty and responsibility to set right the illegality and it is in view of the same, Annexure-A14 order was issued by the Government cancelling Annexure-A9 order of regularisation. Therefore, even if respondents 2 and 3 could not get an advice despite reporting of 36 vacancies it cannot be a reason to justify a regularisation granted to the petitioners in total disregard of the rules and the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in ’ _**Umadevi**_ s case _(supra)_ . 19. The contention of the petitioners that Annexure-A14 order is issued in total violation of the direction of this Court in AnnexureA12 judgment is absolutely without any basis. The contention of the petitioners is that in Annexure-A12 judgment, the court directed that the rights if any of the petitioners could be affected only if the petitioners in O.A.(EKM) No.1309 of 2015 succeed in their challenge against Annexure-A9 order of regularisation and that the Government went wrong in issuing Annexure-A14 order while O.A. (EKM) No.1309 of 2015 was pending. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that there were no circumstances preventing the Government from reviewing an order in the nature of AnnexureA9 while the matter was pending before the Tribunal and that the **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 29** Government is well within its powers to issue Annexure-A14 order when it is brought to its notice. Further, the challenge made against Annexure-A14 order was subsequently repelled by the Tribunal in Exhibit P8 order. 20. The further contention raised by the petitioners is that their termination from service was without following any of the known procedures and that not even a show-cause notice was issued before issuing Annexure-A14 order. In support of the said contention petitioners rely on the judgment in _**Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 194**_ to contend for the position that any adverse action taken without giving notice to the affected party would not be just, fair or reasonable and therefore urged that the impugned order may be set aside and the Government may be directed to reconsider the same. The issue in hand is regarding the validity or otherwise of the regularisation of service of the petitioners while they were admittedly working as daily wage employees. The regularisation granted to the petitioners is not in accordance with the Special Rules and in total disregard of the decisions of the Apex Court in _**Umadevi**_ ’s case as well as _**Satya Prakash**_ ’s case cited _(supra)_ which in clear and unequivocal terms held that there can be no **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 30** regularisation in the case of daily waged employees. Further, the regularisation of the service of the petitioners was done when the rank list was in existence. Several complaints and consequential litigations were pending challenging Annexure-A9 order of regularisation. It is taking note of all these facts that the Government decided to cancel Annexure-A9 order of regularisation as per Annexure-A14 order. The Tribunal in fact considered this question in paragraph 14 of Exhibit-P8 order. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows: “ _14. In fact, even though in the O.A one of the grounds raised is that the applicants in O.A.(Ekm) No.654 of 2017 were not issued with any show cause notice (Ground E) we are told by the learned counsel that the applicants do not insist for a hearing.”_ _(underline supplied)_ The petitioners though took a contention before the Tribunal that no show cause notice was issued before passing the impugned order, they themselves have conceded before the Tribunal that they do not insist for a hearing. Therefore, it could be presumed that petitioners have waived their right for hearing. Even otherwise the courts are not bound to interfere with every order challenged on the sole ground of non-observance of natural justice in a case where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible, ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 31** not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but as courts do not issue futile writs. 21. In the present case, the regularisation as per Annexure-A9 is granted to daily waged employees which is totally impermissible going of the dictum laid by the Apex Court in _**Umadev**_ i's case as well as _**Satya Prakash**_ ’s case cited _(supra)_ . When such illegal action is brought to the notice of the Government, the only consequential action that could be taken by the Government is to cancel the same as is done in the present case by the issuance of Annexure-A14 order. The Council of Ministers has consciously considered all the relevant matters and the opinion of the concerned departments and took a decision to cancel the regularisation granted as per Annexure-A9. The complaint now raised by the petitioners is that such a decision was taken without complying with the principles of natural justice and therefore, liable to be set aside. In the facts and circumstances of this case, whether the court is bound to interfere with Annexure-A14 order only for the reason that the same has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. is the question to be decided. Though the Apex Court has time and again reminded that the principles of natural justice have **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 32** to be followed irrespective of whether it would have made any difference, the Apex Court has also carved out exceptions to the said General Rule and declined to interfere with the orders that are issued without complying the principles of natural justice. When the court after analysing the facts involved in the case feels that of the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible the court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice because courts do not issue futile writs. This position of law is settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court in _**S.L.Kapoor v. Jagmohan and Others, (1980) 4 SCC 379, Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others v. B.Karunakar and Others, (1993) 4 SCC 727** ,_ _**Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. and others (2005) 5 SCC 337**_ , _**Punjab National Bank and Others v. Manjeet Singh and Another (2006) 8 SCC 647**_ , _**Aligarh Muslim University and Others v. Mansoor Alikhan (2000) 7 SCC 529**_ , _**Mohd.Sartaj and Another v. State of U.P and Others, (2006) 2 SCC 315** ,_ _**Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 519**_ , and , _**State of U.P v. Sudhir Kumar**_ **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 33** ## _**Singh, (2020) SCC Online SC 847** ._ 22. A perusal of the pleadings and the documents produced in the present case would clearly show that regularisation granted as per Annexure-A9 order is in clear violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in _**Umadevi**_ 's case and _**Satya Prakash**_ 's case cited _(supra)_ and it is an illegal exercise of power by invoking Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR for grant of regularisation to the petitioners that too when a rank list was in existence. The Apex Court has clearly held that such regularisation granted to daily wage employees will go against the constitutional scheme of public employment and would result in ignoring equity for the many seeking employment and a fair opportunity for competing for employment and that such regularisation will amount to transgression of the rules of regular recruitment. Therefore, the only decision or conclusion that could be arrived at by the Government even after an opportunity of hearing is provided to the petitioners, was to cancel the regularisation granted as per Annexure-A9. In view of the same, we hold that an opportunity of the hearing will not in any manner improve the case of the petitioners and it will only be an exercise in futility. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 34** Court need not interfere with Annexure-A14 order or the decision of the Tribunal only for the reason that principles of natural justice have been violated. In view of the above,these Original Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** sd/- ## **VIJU ABRAHAM** **JUDGE** pm **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 35** ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 262/2017** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE FINAL RANK LIST OF SECURITY GUARDS DATED 16/07/2012. ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE NO.826 DATED 13/04/2015. ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE NO.2193 DATED 29/09/2015. ANNEXURE A4 - COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.313/2015 DATED 17/12/2015. - COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED - ANNEXURE R4(A) 31/03/2009 FOR CATEGORY NO.58/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - COPY OF THE LETTER NO.IDS I(1)5619/15/GW DATED 05/08/2015 ISSUED - ANNEXURE RR(B) BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. - COPY OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE - ANNEXURE A5 NO.AV(2) 4182/028/GW DATED 18TH MARCH 2016. - COPY OF THE CIRCULAR - ANNEXURE A6 NO.10336/ADV.C3/2104/P&ARD DATED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 23/07/2014. - COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER - ANNEXURE A7 NO.79304/SH1/2010/GAD DATED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 01/06/2016. COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART ISSUED BY ANNEXURE A8 THE PSC. ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 36** ANNEXURE A9 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART ISSUED BY THE PSC. - COPY OF THE RELINQUISHMENT LETTERS FROM - ANNEXURE A10 THE PSC ADVISED CANDIDATES ON 24/06/2016. - ANNEXURE A11 - COPY OF THE NOTE FILE DATED 07/06/2016 COLLECTED THROUGH THE RTI ACT. - ANNEXURE A12 - COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN. - COPY OF THE PENSION CERTIFICATE OF THE - ANNEXURE A13 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN. TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION (O.A. (EKM)NO.1309 OF 2015) FILED BY THE EXHIBIT P1. RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ON THE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES THEREIN. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED EXHIBIT P2. BY THE PETITIONERS ON THE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P3. - TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.(EKM)NO.356 OF 2017 IN O.A.(EKM) NO.1309 OF 2015. - EXHIBIT P4. - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 HEREIN. - EXHIBIT P5. - TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 HEREIN. EXHIBIT P6. - TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.12.2016 IN O.A.(EKM) NO.1309 OF 2015 OF THE HONOURABLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. - EXHIBIT P7. - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.02.2017 IN O.P.(KAT) NO.187 OF 2016 **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 37** OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2017 IN O.A.(EKM) NO.1309 OF 2015 OF THE HONOURABLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 38** ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 259/2017** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** COPY OF THE LETTER NO.24335/SH1/2010/GAD DATED 15.06.2011 ANNEXURE A1(A) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE 1ST APPLICANT. COPY OF THE LETTER - NO.24335/SH1/2010/GAD DATED 30.06.2011 - ANNEXURE A1(B) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST APPLICANT. - COPY OF THE LETTER - NO.24335/SH1/2010/GAD DATED 15.06.2011 - ANNEXURE A2(A) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND APPLICANT. - COPY OF THE LETTER - NO.24335/SH1/2010/GAD DATED 30.06.2011 - ANNEXURE A2(B) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND APPLICANT. COPY OF THE LETTER ANNEXURE A3 - NO.79304/SH1/2010/GAD DATED 20.07.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD APPLICANT. - ANNEXURE A4 - COPY OF THE MEMO NO.79304/SH1/2010/GAD DATED 01.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH AND 5TH APPLICANT. - COPY OF THE MEMO NO.79304/SH1/2010/GAD - ANNEXURE A5 DATED ...7.2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH APPLICANT. - ANNEXURE A6 COPY OF THE RANKED LIST TO THE CATEGORY NO.58/2009 ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 39** SERVICE COMMISSION ON 16.07.2012. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED ANNEXURE A7 01.07.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER. - COPY OF THE LETTER NO.IDS 1(1)5619/15/GW DATED 05.08.2015 ISSUED - ANNEXURE A8 BY THE STATE PUBLIC SERVICE INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE 6TH APPLICANT. COPY OF THE GO9MS) NO.313/2015/GAD - ANNEXURE A9 DATED 07.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. - COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2016IN - ANNEXURE A11 OA(EKM) NO.1309 OF 2015 OF THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL. - COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.02.2017 - ANNEXURE A12 IN OP(KAT) NO.187 OF 2016 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. - ANNEXURE A13 - COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE NOTE FROM THE OFFICE OF HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER. - COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.112/2017/GAD - ANNEXURE A14 DATED 21/03/2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. - ANNEXURE A15 - COPY OF THE RELEVANT FILE NOTING BEARING NO.49335/S.H1/2015/GAD. - COPY OF THE NOTING BEARING - ANNEXURE A16 NO.49335/SH1/15/GAD DATED 31.10.2015 OF THE FIN(EXP-A) DEPARTMENT. - COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FILE - ANNEXURE A17 NOTING IN FILE NO.49335/SH1/15/GAD OF NOVEMBER 2015. - ANNEXURE A18(A) COPY OF THE NOTE FOR THE COUNCIL OF ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 40** MINISTERED IN MALAYALAM. - ANNEXURE A18(B) COPY OF THE NOTE FOR THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS IN ENGLISH. - ANNEXURE A19 - COPY OF THE DECISION NO.7777 DATED 03.12.2015 OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS. - COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE AS - ANNEXURE A20 PUBLISHED IN DESHABHIMANI NEWSPAPER ON 14.12.2015. - COPY OF THE LETTER - ANNEXURE A21 NO.49335/S.H.1/2015/GAD DATED 19.12.2015 ADDRESSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - COPY OF THE LETTER NO.R1A(1)18952/12/ - ANNEXURE A22 DATED 05.01.2016 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - COPY OF THE FILE NOTING - ANNEXURE A23 NO.49335/SH1/15/GAD OF JANUARY 2016. - COPY OF THE NOTE NO.1 IN FILE NO. - ANNEXURE A24 (E.124899)EXP-A2/343/2015-FIN. DATED 07.06.2016 OF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT. - COPY OF THE FILE NOTING IN FILE - ANNEXURE A25 NO.SH1/61/2016-GAD DATED 31.10.2016. - COPY OF THE FILE NOTING DATED - ANNEXURE A26 25.11.2016 INFILE NO.SH1/62/2016-GAD BY P AND ARD. - COPY OF THE FILE NOTING IN FILE - ANNEXURE A27 NO.SH1/62/2016-GAD DATED 30.12.2016 OF THE LAW SECRETARY. - COPY OF THE NOTE FOR THE COUNCIL OF - ANNEXURE A28(A) MINISTERS IN MALAYALAM. ## **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 41** COPY OF THE NOTE FOR THE COUNCIL OF ANNEXURE A28(B) MINISTERS IN ENGLISH. - ANNEXURE A29 - COPY OF THE DECISION NO.807 DATED 15.03.2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS. - COPY OF THE LETTER NO.S.H1/2017/GAD - ANNEXURE A30 DATED 15.05.2017 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION TO THE CATEGORY NO. 58/2009 IN GAZETTE DATED - EXHIBIT P1 31.03.2009 PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. - TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION (O.A.EKM) NO. 654 OF 2017) FILED BY THE - EXHIBIT P2 PETITIONER ON THE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBINAL ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES THEREIN. - TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.(EKM0 FOR - EXHIBIT P3 IMPLEADING FILED IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 654 OF 2017. - TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED - EXHIBIT P4 07.04.2017 IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 654 OF 2017 OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL. - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED - EXHIBIT P5 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN O.A.(EKM) NO. 654 OF 2017. - TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE - EXHIBIT P6 PETITIONERS IN O.A.(EKM) NO. 654 OF 2017 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES. - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED - EXHIBIT P7 BY RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 654 OF 2017. **OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 42** EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2017 IN O.A.(EKM)NO. 654 OF 2017 OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.24/CSO/2017 DATED 03.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE 1ST EXHIBIT P9 RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE FORWARDING LETTER NO.1499856/S.H.1/2017 G.A.D DATED 05.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.