OP(KAT) Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020 v. State of Kerala and Director of Fisheries

**OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1941 OP(KAT).No.294 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA(EKM) 1091/2017 DATED 06-12-2018 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND PORT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 001, KERALA. 2 DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTAHAPURAM-695 001, KERALA.** ## **BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A:** **JOBY.K.B S/O.K.V.BABY, OFFICE ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES (BRACKISH WATER AND TRAINING), EAST KANDUNGALLOOR, UC COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA-2, RESIDING AT KODIVELIPURATH HOUSE, MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA-686 669, ERNAKJULAM, KERALA.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.GIRIJA K GOPAL R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.N.VIGY** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.02.2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).13/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1941** **OP(KAT).No.13 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1091/2017 DATED 06-12-2018 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT:** **JOBY K.B., AGED 40 YEARS S/O. K.V. BABY, OFFICE ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES (BRACKISH WATER AND TRAINING), EAST KADUNGALLOOR, U,C, COLLEGE P.O., RESIDING AT KODIVELIPURATH HOUSE, MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA-686669.** **BY ADVS. SMT.GIRIJA K GOPAL SMT.K.N.VIGY** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND PORTS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** ## **BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.02.2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).294/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** **[ OP(KAT).13/2020, OP(KAT).294/2019 ] Dated this the 20th day of February 2020** ## P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J The above captioned Original Petitions (KAT) are filed challenging the order dated 6.12.2018 in O.A(EKM) No.1091/2017 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter mentioned as 'Tribunal'). O.P(KAT) No.294/2019 is filed by the respondents in O.A (EKM) No.1091/2017 and O.P(KAT)No.13/2020 is filed by the applicant in the Original Application. Since both cases are filed challenging the same order passed by the Tribunal, O.P.(KAT) No.294/2019 and O.P(KAT) No.13/2020 are disposed by this common judgment. Parties herein are mentioned as per their rank before the Tribunal. 2. The applicant is working as an Office Assistant in the office of the Deputy Director of Fisheries (Brackish Water and Training), East Kadungalloor, U.C College P.O, Aluva. The main relief sought for in the Original Application is to direct the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of Mechanic under the 2[nd] respondent. The applicant also prayed before ## **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **4** the Tribunal for declaring that, the applicants qualification ie. ITI Refrigeration/ Air Conditioning is a sufficient qualification for promotion to the post of Mechanic in the light of Annexure A2 Special Rules and Annexure A3 Government order. There are other connected reliefs also. 3. Applicant joined in the service under the 2[nd] respondent on 14.6.2004. Annexure A1 is the certificate showing that the applicant completed ITI Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. Annexure A2 produced along with the Original Application is the Kerala Fisheries Service Special Rules, 1962. As per Annexure A2, the post of Mechanic is category No.12. For category No.12 Mechanic and Category No.13 Mechanics Guide Lights and Category No.14 Mechanics Fish Curing Yard, the qualification mentioned is ITI Certificate in concerned trade or equivalent qualification. 4. Annexure A3 is the Special Rules for Kerala Technical Education Subordinate Service. This Rule is framed by the Government, exercising the powers conferred by Sub Section 1 of Section 2 of the Kerala Public Service Act, 1968. According to the counsel for the applicant, as per Rule 3 of Annexure A3, it is stated that, appointments to the various categories of posts mentioned in Column No.1 of the table shall be made by **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **5** methods specified in Column No.2. The Mechanical category is mentioned in Category No.1. According to the counsel, Refrigeration/Air Conditioning is mentioned as a qualification for the post of Mechanic. Without producing page 6 and 7, Page 8 and 9 of the Rules are produced as Annexure A3. The relevant portion of the entries in page 8, which the counsel for the applicant relies, is extracted hereunder: ____________________________________________________ |(I)|(2)| |---|---| |_____________________________________________________________________________|| |(I) Mechanical|(i) Fitting| ||(ii) Metal joining techniques| ||(iii) Turning| ||(iv) Machinist| ||(v) Sheet metal| ||(vi) Smithy (Forging and Heat| ||treating)| ||(vii) Welding| ||(viii) Plumbing/Hydraulics| ||(ix) Tool and Die making| ||(x) Instrument mechanic| ||(xi) Carpentry| ||(xii) Automobile/Heat Engines| ||(xiii) Refrigeration/Air Conditioning| ||(xiv) Moulding/Foundry| |_______________________________________________________________________________________|| 5. Relying on the above Rule produced, according to the applicant, Refrigeration/Air Conditioning is a qualification for the post of Mechanic. It is pointed out that, in the year 2005, the 2[nd] respondent invited applications for promotion and the **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **6** applicant submitted application pursuant to Annexure A4 notice, but he was not considered and certain others who, according to the applicant are unqualified to be considered, were appointed. This was challenged before this Court by filing W.P(C) No.1104/2007. The stand of the respondents in the above Writ Petition was that, the turn according to seniority has not arrived as far as the applicant is concerned. Annexure A5 is the counter affidavit filed in the above writ petition by the respondents. The above writ petition was filed by the applicant along with another candidate Sri.Gopinathan. The stand of the respondents in the above writ petition as evident from Annexure A5 counter affidavit is extracted hereunder: “5. The 1[st] petitioner passes the qualification NTC Instrument Mechanic and the second petitioner NTC Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. They are not eligible for appointment to the post of mechanic in the Department merely on the ground that they are working in the lower scale of pay. Working in the lower scale of pay is only a condition precedent for obtaining the posting as Mechanic. They have to satisfy other conditions such as qualification as per the special rules and reach the turn as per seniority. 6. Eventhough the petitioner is senior to some of the promotees in the order challenged, (Ext.P6), his qualification, NTC Instrument Mechanic, has not so far been considered for promotion to the post of Mechanic by this department. In the case of second petitioner his turn according to his seniority has not arrived. Hence the qualification ie. NTC Refrigeration and Air Conditioning has not been evaluated by the respondent 2 while issuing the order.” 6. After stating that the 1[st] petitioner in that writ **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **7** petition is not having the required qualification, he was promoted as per Annexure A6. The 2[nd] respondent thereafter constituted a Committee on 25.6.2012 and their decision is reflected in Annexure A7. In Annexure A7, it is stated that only person having the qualification stated therein need be considered for promotion to the post of Mechanic. This however has not been incorporated in the Special Rules. The qualification of the applicant has not been included in Annexure A7. Annexure A8 is a report forwarded by the Director of Fisheries to the Government in which the applicants representation is also referred, but his qualification is wrongly stated as ITI Trade in Radio and Television which is factually incorrect. Annexure A10 is the copy of the representation submitted by one T.G.Jayachandran, who is having the same qualification as that of the applicant. The said representation has resulted in Annexure A11 order dated 3.10.2012, whereby he has been promoted as Mechanic along with six others. It is the case of the applicant that, he was not considered at that time also. It is stated by the applicant that, many persons who are not having the qualification specified in the decision taken by the Committee have been promoted. 7. The Government by Annexure A12 communication ## **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** ## **8** dated 22.6.2015, directed the 2[nd] respondent to forward the various materials for considering the qualification of the persons for promotion to the post of Mechanical Instructor and in reply to the same, Annexure 13 was forwarded by the Fisheries Director. The learned counsel for the applicant points out that, in paragraph 2 in Annexure A13, it is stated that, the qualification of Mechanic/Refrigeration and AC, is recommended and the applicant is qualified in it. To show that there is an existing vacancy, the applicant has produced Annexure A18 along with M.A(EKM) No.1202/2018, which will show that, an existing vacancy is there in the office of Deputy Director or Fisheries, Kasaragod from 2.4.2016. Hence the applicant contended that, the respondent cannot say that, there is no sanctioned post. 8. The 2[nd] respondent filed reply statement before the Tribunal disputing the contentions of the applicant. The reply statement of the 2[nd] respondent relies upon the decision of the committee as evident by Annexure A8 whereby, they had suggested six qualification and the qualification of the applicant is not mentioned in it. It is stated that, committee has not recommended Refrigeration and Air Conditioning-ITI certificate, suitable for appointment to the post of Mechanic. Therefore, the **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **9** respondents prayed for dismissing the Original Application. 9. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that, as per Annexure A12 and A13, the Government is seized of the matter and all the materials are called for from the 2[nd] respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to issue appropriate direction to the Government. The Tribunal also found that in the case of Jayachandran as evident by Annexure A10 representation, he was only having the qualification of ITI in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. But he is promoted as per Annexure A11 order. In such circumstances, the Tribunal directed the 2[nd] respondent to temporarily promote the applicant in the existing vacancy of Mechanic at Kasaragod. The relevant portion of the Order of the Tribunal is extracted hereunder: “13. In that view of the matter the following directions are issued. There will be a direction to the first respondent to see that immediate steps are taken either to provide in the Special Rules Annexure A2 against Category Nos.12, 13 and 14, ITI certificates in the concerned trade or equivalent qualifications or to issue an executive order till the rules are amended showing the qualifications so as to fill up the existing vacancies and complete the same within a period of one year. There will be a further direction to the second respondent to temporarily promote the applicant in the existing vacancy of Mechanic in Kasaragod as noted above subject to the decision to be taken by the Government in the matter as directed above and appropriate orders will be issued within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the second respondent. It is made clear that the said appointment/promotion will be purely **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **10** provisional and subject to the outcome of the final decision of the Government as directed above.” 10. The applicant and the respondents are aggrieved by the above order and hence the applicant filed O.P.(KAT) No.13/2020 and the respondents filed O.P(KAT) No.294/2019. We will consider the O.P(KAT) No.294/2019 filed by the respondents at first. ## O.P (KAT) No.294/2019 11. The contention of the Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents is that the Tribunal erred in issuing a direction to the Government for issuance of executive order or by way of amendment of the Rules and fill up the lacuna in the Rules. According to the Government Pleader, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Government to see that, immediate steps should be taken either to provide in the Special Rules (Annexure A2), against category 12, 13 and 14, ITI certificates in the concerned Trades or equivalent qualification or to issue an executive order till the Rules are amended, showing the qualification so as to fill up the existing vacancies. According to the Government Pleader, the direction issued to the 2[nd] respondent to temporarily promote the applicant in the existing vacancy of Mechanic at Kasaragod **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **11** subject to decision taken by the Government is also illegal. The Government Pleader also relies the judgment of the Apex Court in **Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others (2008(10)** ## **SCC 1).** 12. Heard the Government Pleader and the counsel for the applicant. 13. The respondents are aggrieved by the direction of the Tribunal to take immediate steps to include certain qualification in the Special Rules which according to the Government Pleader is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The point is covered by several decisions of the Apex Court. The Court or Tribunal cannot direct the employer to create posts or to prescribe a particular qualification or structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source and mode of recruitment and qualification and criteria of selection etc. This point is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in **Official Liquidator'** s case (supra) **.** The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder **.** **“** 59. The creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source and mode of recruitment and qualifications and criteria of selection, etc. are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. Although the decision of the employer to create or abolish posts or cadres or to **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **12** prescribe the source or mode of recruitment and laying down the qualification, etc. is not immune from judicial review, the Court will always be extremely cautious and circumspect in tinkering with the exercise of discretion by the employer. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post or number of posts be created or filled by a particular mode of recruitment. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions or is patently arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides.” 14. In the light of the above judgment of the Apex Court the directions issued by the Tribunal to the effect that ' there will be a direction to the 1[st] respondent to see that _immediate steps are taken either to provide in the Special Rules Annexure A2 against category 12, 13 and 14, ITI certificates in the concerned Trades or equivalent qualification or to issue an executive order till the Rules are amended showing the qualification so as to fill up the existing vacancies and complete the same within a period of one year',_ is unsustainable in the light of the decision of the Apex Court mentioned above. Therefore, the same is set aside. Regarding the further direction to promote the applicant temporarily in the existing vacancy of Mechanic at Kasaragod can be considered in the O.P (KAT) No.13/2020. OP(KAT) No.13/2020 **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **13** 15. In this case, the applicant is challenging the order dated 6.12.2018 in O.A (EKM) No.1019/2017 of the Tribunal. According to the applicant the Tribunal has erred in rejecting his case for regular promotion with effect from the date of his immediate junior who was promoted. The counsel for the applicant relies on Annexure A3 Special Rules for the Technical Education Subordinate Service and Annexure A11 order by which one T.G.Jayachandaran who is having the same qualification of the applicant, was promoted to the post of Mechanic. The applicant also relies on Annexure A6 by which one C.Gopinath is also promoted. According to the applicant, several others who are not having the required qualification mentioned by the respondents are promoted and the applicant alone is excluded. Hence, the applicant contended that, he is also entitled to regular promotion. The Government Pleader argued that the applicant is not entitled to regular promotion and hence his contentions may be rejected. 16. Heard the counsel for the applicant and the Government Pleader. 17. As per Kerala Fisheries Service Special Rules, 1962 (hereinafter mentioned as Special Rules), method of recruitment for the category of Mechanic is mentioned. As per **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **14** the Special Rules, the qualification for promotion to the post of Mechanic is ITC certificate in the concerned trade or equivalent qualification. The applicant is having ITI certificate in the trade of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Mechanic as per Annexure A1 certificate. As per Annexure A11, one T.G.Jayachandran, Office Assistant, Office of the Assistant Director of Fisheries (Training), Kadungalloor is promoted as Mechanic. A perusal of Annexure A10 representation of Jayachandran, makes it clear that he is only having the qualification in ITI Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. In regard to the promotion of Jayachandran, what is stated in the reply statement by the respondent is that he is having the diploma in Mechanical Engineering. That is not a higher qualification mentioned in the Special Rules nor can it be considered as a qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification as enabled under Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II, KS&SSR. ITI qualification though enables lateral entry to a diploma or graduate course is not an essential lower qualification as has been held in **Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others** v. **Imtiyaz Ahmad** [(2019) 2 SCC 404]. In such circumstances the contention of the respondents that the Jayachandran was promoted because he is having a diploma in ## **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020 15** Mechanical Engineering is unsustainable. Similarly, it is contended by the counsel for the applicant that Sri.Gopinathan, P.Rajesh and P.S.Krishna Kumar who are not having the prescribed qualification recommended by the Committee in Ext.A13 are also promoted to the post of Mechanic. 18. The Special Rules only provide for 'ITI certificate in the concerned trade or equivalent qualification'. That one person who had the identical qualification of the applicant, having been promoted, evidences that the Department envisioned that; as a trade relevant to the activities of the Department. Further Annexure A13, issued by the Fisheries Director contemplated the qualification of the applicant as relevant to the Department. In such circumstances, there is no reason for denying promotion to the petitioner to the post of Mechanic based on Annexure A1 certificate of the applicant in the light of Annexure A2 Special Rules. Therefore, the temporary promotion, ordered by the Tribunal to the applicant is unsustainable and he is entitled for regular promotion. 19. Before concluding, one aspect is to be pointed out. The counsel for the applicant relied on Annexure A3 Kerala Technical Education Subordinate Service Rules to contend that Mechanical Trade includes Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **16** To substantiate the same, the relevant portion of the Special Rules is produced. Page No.1, 4, 5, 8 and 9 are produced as relevant extracts of the GO(P) 503/2012/H.Edn. Relying upon this relevant portion, the applicant took a contention in Ground B of the Original Application, which is extracted hereunder: “The Special Rules of the Fisheries Department does not stipulate or specify which all trades are included or desired for promotion to the post of Mechanic. But as per Government Order produced as Annexure A3, the trade of Refrigeration & Air Conditioning are also included in the mechanical wing. Hence applicant is eligible for promotion to the post of Mechanic. 20. A reading of the above ground will show that, as per Annexure A3, the trade of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning are also included in the Mechanical wing. The applicant conveniently avoided Page 6 and 7 of the Rules while producing Annexure A3. But when we go through the entire text of Special Rules for the Kerala Technical Education Subordinate Service, page 9 does not intend to include the different trades under Mechanical, as falling under that category. The Government Order, under Rule 3 referring to 'Appointment', lists out various Branches, from A to E, Branch A refers to Engineering and Technology and has 12 categories listed there. There is a note after the 12 categories and as per Note 2 it is stated like this:- **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **17** “Note 2: For categories 3 to 9, appropriate trades for heat engine, hydraulics labs etc. specified below will be any of the trades mentioned against them” 21. Thereafter, Mechanical is mentioned as a part of the note, in which item (i) to (xiv) trades are mentioned as appropriate trade for heat engine, hydraulics labs etc. applicable to the Categories 3 to 9 in Branch A. If pages 6 and 7 were produced along with Annexure A3, we would have straight away said that the particular Rules are not at all applicable. Even otherwise there can be no parallel drawn from the Special Rules of a totally different service, where the trades are identified with respect to the requirements of that service. In the light of the findings mentioned in the earlier paragraphs, O.P(KAT) No.294/2019 and O.P(KAT) No.13/2020 are allowed. Order dated 6.12.2018 in O.A (EKM) No.1091/2017 on the file of Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam is set aside. There will be a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to promote the applicant in the existing vacancy of Mechanic at Kasaragod in the light of the fact that, similarly qualified person like the applicant was promoted as per **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **18** Annexure A11 and Annexure A6. The O.P(KAT)No.294/2019 and O.P(KAT) No.13/2020 are allowed. While setting aside the order of the Tribunal, we allow the OA filed by the applicant. The parties shall bear their respective costs. **Sd/-** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ab **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **19** ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 294/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ABOVE ORIGINAL APPLICATION O.A.(EKM)NO.1091/2017 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P1(A1) PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT EVIDENCING HIS EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION. EXHIBIT P1(A2) PHOTOCOPY OF SPECIAL RULES. EXHIBIT P1(A3) RELEVANT EXTRACT OF G.O. (P)NO.503/2012/H.EDN DATED 12.10.2012. EXHIBIT P1(A4) PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.01.2005. EXHIBIT P1(A5) TYPED COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC NO.1104/2007 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P1(A6) PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 26.08.2011 PROMOTING SRI.G.GOPINATHAN AS MECHANIC. EXHIBIT P1(A7) PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.06.2012. EXHIBIT P1(A8) PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.09.2013. EXHIBIT P1(A9) PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REPLY GIVEN VIDE LETTER NO.A4/3764/09 DATED 15.06.2009 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(A10) PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.06.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(A11) PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.A4/10575/2011 DATED 03.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(A12) PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.06.2015. EXHIBIT P1(A13) PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 09.07.2015 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **20** **EXHIBIT P1(A14) PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO.2458/2012. EXHIBIT P1(A15) PHOTOCOPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.1001/13/F & AD DATED 07.12.2013. EXHIBIT P1(A16) PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO.3029/2013. EXHIBIT P2 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MA(EKM) NO.1202/2018. EXHIBIT P4(A17) PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT DATED 05.04.2018 TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, KASARAGOD (AS PER IN MA (EKM) NO.1202/2018). EXHIBIT P4(A18) PHOTOCOPY OF UNDATED REPLY ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, KASARAGODE TO THE APPLICANT (AS PER IN MA(EKM) NO.1202/2018). EXHIBIT P5 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2018 IN OA (EKM) NO.1091/2017.** RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020** **21** ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 13/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OA (EKM) 1091/2017 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P1(A1) PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT EVIDENCING HIS EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION.** - **EXHIBIT P1(A2) PHOTOCOPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES. EXHIBIT P1(A3) PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF GO(P) NO.503/2012 H.EDN. DATED 12/10/2012.** **EXHIBIT P1(A4) PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17/01/2005.** - **EXHIBIT P1(A5) PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC NO.1104/2007 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** - **EXHIBIT P1(A6) PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 26/08/2011 PROMOTING SRI.G.GOPINATHAN AS MECHANIC.** - **EXHIBIT P1(A7) PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/06/2012.** - **EXHIBIT P1(A8) PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26/09/2013.** - **EXHIBIT P1(A9) PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REPLY GIVEN VIDE LETTER NO.A4/3764/09 DATED 15/06/2009 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P1(A10) PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/06/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P1(A11) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4/10575/2011 DATED 03/10/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P1(A12) PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22/06/2015.** **OP(KAT)Nos.294/2019 & 13/2020 22** **EXHIBIT P1(A13) PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 09/07/2015 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(A14) PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN OA 2458/2012. EXHIBIT P1(A15) PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.1001/13/F AND AD DATED 07/12/2013. EXHIBIT P1(A16) PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO.3029/2013. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MA (EKM) NO.1202/2018. EXHIBIT P4(A17) PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT DATED 05/04/2018 TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES. EXHIBIT P4(A18) PHOTOCOPY OF THE UNDATED REPLY ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, KASARGODE. EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/12/2018 IN OA (EKM) NO.1091/2017. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL** //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab