O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **OP(KAT).No.358 OF 2020** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1332/2017 DATED 12-03-2019 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER:** **O.A.JOSEPH AGED 65 YEARS S/O. ABRAHAM, ONAYATHUMKUZHY HOUSE, PAMPADY-686502. BY O.A.JOSEPH(PARTY IN PERSON)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,**| ||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANATHAPURAM-695001,**| ||**KERALA.**| |**2**|**SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT P.O.**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**3**|**DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL JUSTICE,**| ||**VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695033.**| |**4**|**ADV. K.K. MONY,**| ||**ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (RTD.), TC 7/71, RAGAM, NLRA-29,**| ||**ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,**| ||**KERALA -695011.**| |**5**|**K. LALITHA,**| ||**W/O. VENUGOPAL, SANTHA MANDIRAM, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., BO**| ||**ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-683542.**| |**6**|**K.H. PHILOMINA,**| ||**JOINT DIRECTOR (RTD.), FLAT NO. 321, CF 6 BLOCK-8,**| ||**AISWARYA NAGAR, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM, KERALA-693106.**| O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020 2 - **7 P. PRATHAPAN,** - **ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (RTD.), NEDUVAN VEEDU, PONGANADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAMM-695001.** - **8 K.K. JOSEPH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RTD.), KALLUPURACKAL HOUSE, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-688004.** - **9 C.K. RAGHAVANUNI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RTD.), GEETHANJALI HOUSE, PANANGAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682506.** - **10 SHILA UNNITHAN, JOINT DIRECTOR (RTD), ILLATH HOUSE (H), PANDALAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA-689501.** - **11 L. KANAKAMMA, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RTD), VILAYIL HOUSE VILAVOORKONAM P.O., KALLUVATHUKAL, KOLLAM, KERALA-691578.** - **12 M. KUMARI INDIRA, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RTD), VILAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL POURNAMI HOUSE, PIUNNAKALSSERY, PANDALAM P.O., THATTAMALA, KOLLAM, KERALA-691020.** - **13 ELSY P. SEBASTIAN, JOINT DIRECTOR (RTD), CHENAKKOTTU HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682308.** - **14 E. ABDUL SHUKKAOOR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RTD), JAMEELA MANZIL (H), JENTHANAM WARD, HEAD POST OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA688001.** - **15 V.B. ROY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RTD), HARI SREE (H), CHERTHALA SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-688539.** - **16 A. SHEELA, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RTD), SREE SASTHKRIPA HOUSE, PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695581.** - **17 RAJASREE P.K., JOINT DIRECTOR, SOCIAL JUSTICE DIRECTORATE (ANNEXURE) SOCIAL WELFARE BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695012.** - **18 V.S. VENU, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE (ANNEX), POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA695012.** O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020 3 **19 SURENDRA KUMAR K.K., JOINT DIRECTOR, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, KERALA.** **SRI. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR (SR.G.P.)** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-10-2020, THE COURT ON 05-11-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020 4 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 5[th] day of November 2020** ## **Gopinath,J.** The applicant in O.A.No.1332/2017 before the Tribunal has filed this Original Petition challenging the final order in that Original Application (Ext.P.5). A review petition filed before the Tribunal seeking review of that order was also dismissed by Ext.P7 order dated 14.09.2020. 2. The petitioner joined the Social Welfare Department on 1.1.1985 through direct recruitment to the post of Child Development Project Officer, on the advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission. According to him, persons recruited to the category of District Probation Officer Gr.II were cornering all promotional avenues to the detriment of persons like the petitioner, who entered service much earlier than them. On taking up his grievances with the Government, the petitioner was informed that the matter would be considered on finalization of the special rules. The grievances of the petitioner were not redressed when the Government issued the special rules vide G.O.(P)No.28/92.AWD dated 5.8.1992. The validity of the 1992 Rules were challenged before this Court through W.P.(C)No.32366/2007. A learned single Judge of this Court found the Rules to be arbitrary and discriminatory and directed that till the Special Rules are suitably O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020 5 amended, the promotions to the category of Regional Probation Officer/Regional Assistant Director of Social Welfare (Category-4) shall be made strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 28(b)(i) (7) (vi) of the General Rules (Part II of the KS & SSR). However, the judgment of the learned single Judge was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1873 & 1960/2009. The statutory rules were subsequently amended in 2010 prescribing a ratio of 10:1 between Child Development Project Officers and District Probation Officers Gr.I for promotion to the post of District Social Welfare Officer. However, these Rules were given only prospective effect. The judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1873 and 1960/2009 were challenged before the Supreme Court through SLP(C)No.10318/2010. That Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed, however, permitting the filing of representations before the Government and further directing the State Government to consider the representations. The representation was rejected. The petitioner therefore approached the Tribunal claiming that he was entitled to notional promotion as Joint Director/Additional Director with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted to those posts and also to extend the benefits of such notional promotion to him. 3. We have heard Sri.O.A Joseph, the petitioner who appeared party in Person and the learned government pleader appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the matter we find that the Special Rules of 1992 were applicable till 29.3.2010. The 1992 Rules were O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020 6 framed with retrospective effect from 9.9.1975. It may be that there were some anomalies in the Rules as noticed by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.32366/2007. However, the said judgment was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court through judgment dated 19.1.2020 in W.A.Nos.1873 and 1960/2009. The Division Bench found that the provisions of Rule 28 of Part II of KS & SSR will apply only in the absence of Special Rules. It is also noticed that the Rule 2 of Part II of the KS & SSR also provides that if there is a conflict between the Special Rules and General Rules, the provisions of the Special Rules will prevail. The Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the judgment in W.A.Nos.1873 & 1976 of 2009 held as follows: _“8. We considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and went through the pleadings and materials on record. The contention of the appellants that there is delay in challenging the Rules, from the part of the first respondent, cannot be accepted. She need challenge the Rules, only when they adversely affect her. Before referring to the other contentions urged before us, we will presently refer to the relevant Rules. Rule 2 of Part II of the KS & SSR deals with the general principle that the Special Rules will oust the General Rules. The said Rule reads as follows:_ _“_ _**2. Relation to the Special Rules.** - If any provision in the general rules contained in the Part is repugnant to a provision in the Special Rules applicable to any particular service contained in Part III, the latter shall, in respect of that service, prevail over the provision in the general rules in this Part.”_ _Note (vi) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) reads as follows:_ ## _“_ _**28(b)(i) Promotion and appointment by transfer according to merit and ability** :-_ _(7) xx xx xx xx (vi) When there are more than one feeder category carrying different scales of pay, they shall be shown in separate lists and persons in a lower scale of pay shall be appointed only after appointing all persons on a higher scale of pay, unless the Special Rules prescribe a ratio or any special order of preference for each feeder category.”_ O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020 7 _When there is no specific provision in the Special Rules concerning preference in the matter of appointment from different categories, the above quoted rule will apply, when there are more than one post in the feeder category for promotion. The method of appointment prescribed in the Special Rules for the Kerala Social Welfare Service, for the post of Regional Probation Officer/Regional Assistant Director/Assistant Director of Social Welfare, which is included as Category No.4, reads as follows:-_ Regional Probation 4 Officer/Regional 1. By . Assistant promotion from (i) Must have passed Director/Assistant categories Kerala State Probation Director 5,6,7 and 8 Test; and of and by Social Welfare transfer from Senior (ii) Must have passed Superintendent Account Test (Lower) , from a or common list Account Test for prepared on Executive Officers. the a basis of date of appointment to the respective category without prejudice to interse seniority among persons belonging to the same category. Note:(1) Must possess a From 16-9-1985 Master's Degree in promotion to Social Work or this category Sociology of a shall be made recognised from University. categories 5 and 6 only. (2) In the absence of qualified candidates for promotion, by direct recruitment. _Going by the above method of appointment, it is seen that the incumbents in both the feeder categories are treated equally. Apparently, there is nothing wrong with such a prescription. But, the learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out that Category No.5 is on a higher grade when compared to Category No.6. Further, having regard to the method of appointment to the post in Category No.5, persons reach that category only belatedly, but here are better chances for promotion at the lower level to those in the feeder category for Category No.6 and they reach Category No.6 earlier. In view of the said position prevailing in the Social Welfare Department, most of the vacancies in Category No.4 are_ O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020 8 _filled up from among the persons in Category No.6. So, the method of appointment which treats unequals equally is liable to be struck down as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it is submitted. Therefore the learned Single Judge has rightly interfered with the impugned Rules, it is pointed out._ _9. The above contention has to be examined in the light of the principles governing the invalidation of a subordinate legislation. A Division Bench of this Court in_ _**Pankajakshy** v._ _**George Mathew** [1987 (2) KLT 723], after analysing all the decisions on the point, laid down as follows:-_ _“12. Thus, the rule made under a statute by an authority delegated for the purpose can be challenged on the ground (1) that it is ultra vires of the Act; (2) it is opposed to the Fundamental rights; (3) it is opposed to other plenary laws. To ascertain whether a rule is ultra vires of the Act, the Court can go into the question (a) whether it contravenes expressly or impliedly any of the provisions of the statute; (b) whether it achieves the intent and object of the Act; and (c) whether it is “unreasonable” to be manifestly arbitrary, unjust or partial implying thereby want of authority to make such rules.”_ _Going by the above dictum, if the provisions of the rule are ultra vires of the parent Act, the said rule can be struck down. If the rule is in conflict with any other statutory provision, then also the said rule can be struck down as ultra vires and beyond the rule making power of the delegate of the Legislature. A rule can be struck down as unreasonable, if it is grossly arbitrary and partial in its operation whereupon the court would say that the Legislature should not be intended to have conferred power to frame such arbitrary rules. Then, again this ground comes under the first ground, that is, ultra vires of the provisions of the parent Act. In this case, we think, none of the above grounds enumerated by the Division Bench is available. By the operation of the Rule, promotion chances of persons in Category No.5 may not be bright from the administrator's point of view. It is an anomaly that requires to be rectified. But, the fact that persons belonging to one category do not get sufficient promotion chances when compared to the persons in the rival feeder category, we think, is not a ground available for striking down a subordinate legislation. Thus, the provisions in the rule which say that persons in both the feeder categories are to be put in a common seniority list and the promotions ordered from that list, cannot be said to be arbitrary, or irrational, or unjust or partial in its operation. Of course, the same would generate some grievances to persons belonging to one category. Only the delegate of the Legislature can act to remedy that and not the court. Such inequities which may come to light during the operation of the rules are not grounds for declaring them as unconstitutional. The direction of the learned Single Judge has created by members of Category No.5, as they are having a higher scale of pay when compared to those in Category No.6. It means, if there is an incumbent in Category No.5, those in category No.6 cannot aspire for promotion to Category No.4. Thus, the_ O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020 9 _remedy suggested by the learned Single Judge will be worse than the disease._ _10. In view of the above position, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the Writ Petition is dismissed. The Writ Appeal is allowed as above.”_ It is true that the Supreme Court, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment of the Division Bench, gave to the persons aggrieved a chance to make a representation to the Government. The Rules were amended in 2010. It may be that if the amended Rules were followed, the petitioner would have obtained the promotions which he now claims he was entitled to, on the premise that persons who entered service much after him obtained promotions earlier than him. However, the fact remains that the Special Rules issued in 1992 continued to hold the field till 2010 and the challenge to the said Rules was specifically repelled by the Division Bench in the judgment in W.A.Nos.1873 & 1960 of 2009. That being the position, the petitioner cannot seek to re-open the issues which have been concluded by the judgment of the Division Bench on the sole ground that the aggrieved persons were permitted to make representations to the Government. The petitioner cannot claim that the provisions of 2010 Rules should be given retrospective effect. These are matters entirely for the administration and unless we were to find any gross illegality, irrationality or impropriety in the Government deciding to amend the Rules only prospectively, we would not be justified in directing that the Rules should operate from a retrospective date. This position does not change even if we were to find that there were some anomaly in the Rules which O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020 10 governed the issue prior to amendment in 2010. Here, as already pointed out, the Rules issued in 1992 were found to be valid by a Division Bench. This finding was not upset by the Supreme Court. The petitioner cannot, at this stage, seek to declare that 2010 Rules must operate from retrospective date. The claim of the petitioner is that the 2010 Rules must operate with retrospective effect from 1984. If such a declaration is granted, promotions given under the provisions of 1992 Rules (which operated retrospectively from 9.9.1975) would have to be undone. Therefore, taking note of all the above circumstances, the Tribunal was right in declining relief in O.A.No.1332/2017. The Tribunal also rightly rejected the application seeking review of that order. We find no ground to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Original Petition (KAT), therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/-** **A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-** **GOPINATH P.** **JUDGE** acd O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020 11 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM.** - **ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DATED 04/07/1998 (NO. GCI-12255/98).** - **ANNEXURE A1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE LR. NO. DAG (ADMN) C. CELL RTI/229/2016 DATED 21/10/2016-17/592 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA.** - **ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/07/1991 ADDRESSED TO MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE, KERALA.** - **ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LR. NO.4842/A1/91 SWD DATED 29/10/1991. REPLY TO APPLICANT FROM SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SOCIAL WELFARE (A) DEPARTMENT, KERALA.** - **ANNEXURE A3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.575/1989-R DATED 07/01/1993 OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF KERALA.** - **ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES 1992 DATED 05/08/92-GO(P) 28/92/SWD FOR KERALA STATE SOCIAL WELFARE SERVICE.** - **ANNEXURE A4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATORY NOTE ATTACHED TO SPECIAL RULES 1992 FOR KERALA SOCIAL WELFARE SUBORDINATE SERVICE.** - **ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.12711/1994 L DATED 06/07/1999 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** - **ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/11/1998 TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A6(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT VIDE LETTER DATED** O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020 12 ||**23/06/1999.**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE A7**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE C.**| ||**THANKARAJ COMMISSION OF DECEMBER**| ||**2000.**| |**ANNEXURE A8**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE**| ||**HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN WA**| ||**(NO.1873 AND 1960 OF 2000 DATED**| ||**19/01/2010).**| |**ANNEXURE A8(A)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE**| ||**HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC**| ||**32366/2007(C) DATED 07/07/2009.**| |**ANNEXURE A9**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES FOR**| ||**KERALA SOCIAL WELFARE SERVICE 2010**| ||**PUBLISHED VIDE GO (P) NO.23/2010 SWD**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30/03/2010.**| |**ANNEXURE A10**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.**| ||**11836/SP. CELL 3/95 DSW DATED**| ||**01/07/1995 ATTACHING A TRUE ABSTRACT**| ||**FINAL COMBINED SENIORITY LIST OF**| ||**DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER**| ||**INSPECTOR SNP-GR.I AND DPOS I AS**| ||**05/08/1992, ISSUED BY THE THIRD**| ||**RESPONDENT PROMOTION TO THE POST OF**| ||**RPO/RAD/AD FOR PERIODS FROM**| ||**16/09/1985.**| |**ANNEXURE A10(A)**|**A TRUE ABSTRACT OF THE FINAL COMBINED**| ||**SENIORITY LIST OF DS INSPECTORS SNP**| ||**GR.I DPO GR.I FOR PROMOTION TO THE**| ||**POST OF RPO/RAD/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF**| ||**SOCIAL WELFARE FROM 16/09/1985.**| |**ANNEXURE A10B**|**A TRUE ABSTRACT OF THE FINAL**| ||**SENIORITY LIST OF CDPO ICDS PROGRAMME**| ||**OFFICER/PROJECT OFFICER SNP DISTRICT**| ||**SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER/INSPECTOR SNP**| ||**GR.I TILL 15/09/1985 SUPDT. WELFARE**| ||**INST. GR.I, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT AS**| ||**ON 05/08/1992 VIDE ORDER NO.6866 SP.**| ||**CELL-395 DATED 24/06/1995, THE**| ||**PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A11**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE**| ||**HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP**| ||**10318/2010 DATED 16/04/2010.**| |**ANNEXURE A12**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**| ||**DATED 04/05/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE**| O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020 13 ||**APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE A13**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED**| ||**02/06/2010 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT**| ||**ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT.**| |**ANNEXURE A14**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL SUBMISSION**| ||**MADE BY THE APPLICANT ON 04/11/2016**| ||**TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A15**|**A TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.186/2017 SJD**| ||**TVM DATED 27/03/2017 OF THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT.**| |**ANNEXURE A15(A)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LAW IN PERSPECTIVE**| ||**PUBLISHED BY HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT**| ||**OF INDIA.**| |**ANNEXURE A16**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE**| ||**HON'BLE KERALA LOKAYUKTA DATED**| ||**30/03/2017.**| |**ANNEXURE A17**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE KS & SSR**| ||**(AMENDMENT RULES) VIDE GO(P) NO.**| ||**10/84 GAD DATED 09/01/1984.**| |**ANNEXURE A17(A)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BY THE**| ||**HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WA**| ||**NO.888/2015 (STATE OF KERALA AND**| ||**ANOTHER VS. D. KALA DATED 10/11/2008)**| |**ANNEXURE A18**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OP (KAT)**| ||**NO.80/2003(Z) HONOURABLE HIGH COURT**| ||**OF KERALA DATED 25/12/2015 IN SABU**| ||**JOSEPH VS. STATE OF KERALA AND**| ||**ANOTHER.**| |**ANNEXURE A19**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE**| ||**HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN S. PRAKASH**| ||**AND ANR VS. K.M. KURIAN AND OTHERS**| ||**(1999(5) SEC.-624)**| |**ANNEXURE A20**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST OF 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT FOR PROMOTION AS ASSISTANT**| ||**DIRECTOR PUBLISHED VIDE GO(MS)**| ||**NO.24(3) 98/SWD DATED 25/09/1998.**| |**ANNEXURE A20(A)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST OF 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT FOR PROMOTION AS JOINT**| ||**DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE PUBLISHED**| ||**VIDE GO(MS) NO.20(2) 2004 SWD DATED**| ||**27/01/2004.**| O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020 14 |**ANNEXURE A20B**|**A TRUE COPY OF LR. NO. DAG-ADMN.**| |---|---| ||**C.CELL-RTI-270/16-17/701 DATED**| ||**25/11/2016 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR**| ||**DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (ADMN) AND**| ||**CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.**| |**ANNEXURE A21**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**| ||**13/02/2006 IN WPC NO.29134/2003(R) IN**| ||**DR. T.T. KRISHNAKUMAR AND ANOTHER VS.**| ||**STATE OF KERALA.**| |**ANNEXURE A22**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE**| ||**HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL**| ||**APPEAL NO.2485-2491/2010 AND RELATED**| ||**CASES IN DHOLE-GOVIND SAHEBRAO VS.**| ||**UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS.**| |**ANNEXURE A23**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN**| ||**SREENARAYANAN ELAYATH VS. KSEB DATED**| ||**19 JANUARY 2005.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLAY STATEMENT**| ||**DATED 25/01/2018 ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED**| ||**20/02/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.**| |**ANNEXURE A24**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BY**| ||**HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA (DB)**| ||**IN STATE OF KERALA VS.KRISHNA KUMAR**| ||**T.G. ON 26 JUNE 2009.**| |**ANNEXURE A25**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF**| ||**HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN**| ||**CIVIL NO. 4371/2008 IN PANCHARAJ**| ||**TIWARI VS. MP STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD**| ||**AND OTHERS.**| |**ANNEXURE A25A**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT OBTAINED**| ||**FROM OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY**| ||**REGARDING SYNONYM OF WORD MERGE.**| |**ANNEXURE A26**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF**| ||**HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN**| ||**CIVIL APPEAL NO.1153/2003 IN**| ||**HARIGOVIND YADAV VS. REWA SIDHI**| ||**GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS ON 09/MAY**| ||**2006.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDI REJOINDER**| ||**DATED 20/02/2018 FILED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER.**| O.P.(KAT)No.358/2020 15 |**ANNEXURE A 27**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BY**| |---|---| ||**HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA KULDIP**| ||**CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER ON**| ||**24 AUGUST 1995.**| |**ANNEXURE A27**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BY**| ||**HON'BLE COURT (WA) IN JOHNSON**| ||**FERNANDEZ L. VS. M.K.**| |**ANNEXURE A28**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE**| ||**HON'BLE SUPREMECOURT OF BHUPENDRA**| ||**NATH HAZARIKA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE**| ||**OF ASSAM AND OTHERS IN CIVIL APPEAL**| ||**OF TO NO.2012 SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 19707-**| ||**19708/2009.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**| ||**12/03/2019 OF HON'BLE KERALA**| ||**ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN OA**| ||**1332/2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION**| ||**FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE**| ||**HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**| ||**14/09/2020 OF HON'BLE KERALA**| ||**ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN RA**| ||**19/2019.**|