P.S. Sheeja and Others v Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd and Administrator, Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd; W.P.(C) Nos. 29313/2018 & 29169/2018

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 29313 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 P.S. SHEEJA, NANDIKKARA HOUSE, ETTUMUNA, KARUVANNUR.P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680711.** - **2 SUNITHA.C.G, KAIPPILLI HOUSE, ARIMBOOR, THRISSUR - 680 620.** - **3 THOMAS P.J., PAREKKADAN HOUSE, ADAATT P.O., THRISSUR-680554.** - **4 JAYASHANKAR V.G., VELIMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR PIN-680027.** - **5 PRIYA V, VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, OORAKAM, THRISSUR-680562.** - **6 SUJATHA M.O., W/O.DHARMAJAN V.V., VILLADATH HOUSE, P.O.KAROOPPADANNA, THRISSUR-680670.** - **7 RAJANI MOHAN, MANJERI HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA P.O., CHENBANKUNNU, THRISSUR-680724.** - **8 NAMEESH P.N., PLAAVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHEMBOOTHRA, PATTIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680652.** - **9 PRIYA K.K., MAANINGATH HOUSE, PUTHENPEEDIKA P.O., THRISSUR-680 642.** - **10 LINSON A.L., AKKARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIROOR, M.G.KAVU P.O., THRISSUR-680581.** - **11 SHAJU A.M., AKKARA PATTAKAL HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680551.** **BY ADV SRI.N.ANAND** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, SAHAKARANA SHATHABDI MANDIRAM, KOVILAKKATHUMPADAM.P.O, THRISSUR-680022, REPRESENTED BY** **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-2-** **ITS GENERAL MANAGER.** **2 THE ADMINISTRATOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, SAHAKARANA SHATHABDI MANDIRAM, KOVILAKKATHUMJPADAM,P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680022.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD. SMT RESMI THOMAS -GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).29169/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-3-** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 29169 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 HAROON K.A., KALLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTUNGACHIRA, P.O.IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR.** - **2 GEETHA P.S., THENGIL HOUSE, PERUNGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR.** - **3 REKHA V., CHEMMANGATTU HOUSE, IKKA NAGAR, PUTHOORKARA, THRISSUR.** - **4 VILASINI V.K, VAKKATH HOUSE, P.O.KANJANI, THRISSUR.** - **5 AMBILI P.K., MADAPPATTIL HOSUE, P.O.KODANNUR, THRISSUR.** - **6 RANJINI R., VELLOR HOUSE, (ERATH), PONNUKKARA, THRISSUR.** - **7 MAYADEVI T.R., PURAYATH HOUSE, P.O.MUPLIYAM, PEEDIKAPARAMBU, THRISSUR.** - **BY ADVS.P.N. MOHANAN C.P. SABARI AMRUTHA SURESH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, SAHAKARANA SHATHABDI MANDIRAM, KOVILAKKATHUMPADAM P.O., THRISSUR-680 022,** **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-4-** ## **REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.** - **2 THE ADMINISTRATOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, SAHAKARANA SHATHABDI MANDIRAM, KOVILAKKATHUMPADAM P.O., THRISSUR-680 022.** - **3 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **4 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. SMT.RESMI THOMAS, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).29313/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-5-** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **[WP(C) Nos.29313/2018, 29169/2018]** The petitioners in these two cases were appointed as Part-time Sweepers in the services of the erstwhile 'Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd', which has now merged with the 'Kerala Bank' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank', for short). They were appointed pursuant to a notification, which was, however, assailed by certain persons, leading to the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in W.P. (C)No.20561/2015, finding it to be illegal. As a consequential direction, the Bank was ordered to re-notify the posts of Part-time Sweepers and complete such recruitment thereafter. 2. The aforementioned judgment was, thereupon, taken up in appeal before a learned Division Bench of this Court by the Bank in ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** W.A.No.2048/2015 and an order of its stay obtained. 3. On the strength of the interim order, the writ petitioners herein were appointed by the Bank; but then, without assigning any specific reason, solely averring that “ _the bank has adopted_ _a resolution to withdraw the writ appeal, since it is found that proceeding with the writ appeal is not in the better interest of the Bank'_ (sic), an application was moved by it on 12.10.2017 to withdraw the aforesaid writ appeal. 4. The writ petitioners herein, thereupon, filed application to implead themselves as respondents in the appeal, but the learned Division Bench allowed the Bank to withdraw the said appeal through its judgment dated 31.10.2017, but granting liberty to them to file independent writ appeals, which they did, after obtaining leave, which were numbered as W.A.Nos.2258/2017 ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** ## **-7-** and 2284/2017. 5. The writ appeals thus filed by the petitioners herein were subsequently allowed by another learned Division Bench of this Court through the judgment reported as _**Mayadevi v. Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd.**_ [2018 (3) KLT 330], declaring the notification issued by the Bank to be valid and legal; however, liberty being reserved to any 'aggrieved candidate' to question the appointments through appropriate proceedings. 6. It transpires that taking advantage of the afore liberty reserved to 'any aggrieved candidate', the Bank issued notices to the petitioners herein – however without any complaint being made by any candidate - asking them to show cause why their appointments should not be terminated. This finally led to Exts.P14 to P16 orders in W.P.(C)No.29169/2018 and Exts.P13 to P13(j) in W.P.(C)No.29313/2018, being issued by ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the Bank, cancelling the appointments of the petitioners for various reasons. 7. The petitioners thus challenge the afore orders as being illegal and unlawful and beyond the liberty granted by this Court in _**Mayadevi**_ (supra). 8. I have heard Sri.P.N.Mohanan - learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.29169/2018; Sri.N.Anand – learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.29313/2018; Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the Bank and Smt.Resmi Thomas - learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 9. Sri.P.N.Mohanan argued that the impugned orders are improper and wholly impermissible because, in _**Mayadevi**_ (supra), the learned Division Bench of this Court only left liberty to an 'aggrieved candidate' to question the appointments ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-9-** in appropriate proceedings. He contended that no freedom had been conceded to the Bank to review its own action, which, in fact, had been confirmed by it earlier; and therefore, that the exercise reflected in the orders assailed is untenable and wholly extraneous. 10. Sri.N.Anand - learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.29313/2018, urged identical contentions and asserted that Ext.P13 series of orders in this writ petition (which are the same as Exts.P14 to P16 in W.P. (C)No.29169/2018) are illegal and unlawful. 11. However, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, submitted that the impugned orders issued by his client were not on the basis of the judgment of this Court in _**Mayadevi**_ (supra), but because they have the inherent right to rectify mistakes in their earlier actions. He pointed out that the ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-10-** appointments of the petitioners were in violation of various Statutory Provisions and vitiated by corruption; and therefore, that his client had no other option, but to cancel them, which they did through the impugned orders. He explained that, before issuing the said orders, the petitioners were issued notices to show cause and their explanations adverted to carefully, but found to be unworthy. The learned counsel thus prayed that these writ petitions be dismissed. 12. Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader, submitted that the disputes in these cases are between the petitioners and the Bank and that her clients have, therefore, no role to play at this stage. 13. I have examined Exts.P14 to P16 in W.P. (C)No.29169/2018 (which is the same as Exts.P13 to P13(j) in W.P.(C)No.29313/2018). ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-11-** 14. There are seven reasons stated in the impugned orders in substantiation of the stand of the Bank that the appointments of the petitioners are untenable. They are: - (a) Only 9 posts were notified, while 18 appointments were made; - (b) 50% of the vacancies in the Bank ought to have been reserved for persons from the Primary Co-operative Bank under the mandate of Rule 187 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules ('KCS Rules' for short); (c) Several persons in the Rank List were given only zero marks; - (d) There is nothing on the files to show how the physical endurance of the various candidates were evaluated; ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **==> picture [30 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** (e) Many persons were over aged and over qualified as per the provisions of Rule 186(1) of the 'KCS Rules'; - (f) The petitioners furnished wrong information regarding their educational qualifications, which is a criminal offence, and **==> picture [313 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** Selection Committee per day and that this was in haste. 15. I am also cognizant of the fact that the appointments made by the Bank were, in fact, initially reviewed by the Part-time Administrator appointed subsequently. The same reasons, as recorded in the impugned orders, seem to have persuaded his mind in having issued notices to the candidates, a copy of one of which is on record as Ext.R1(j) in W.P.(C)No.29313/2018. ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-13-** 16. However, the most crucial question in these cases is how the Bank could have unilaterally reviewed its own earlier decisions and appointments made, holding that it had been in error, without embarking upon the processes under Section 69 or such other of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act ('KCS Act', for short) and the 'KCS Rules' thereunder. 17. This is all the more important in these cases because, in _**Mayadevi**_ (supra), the only liberty granted was to the **aggrieved candidates** to challenge the appointments through appropriate proceedings. There was no liberty reserved to the Bank to review its earlier decisions, but the contention of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel, is that his client obtains inherent right to correct errors in its decisions and to set right its management. 18. Sri.P.N.Mohanan and Sri.N.Anand, learned ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-14-** counsel appearing for the petitioners, interjected at this juncture to vehemently contend that the Bank cannot take any such decision nor could have they cancelled the appointments of their clients because everyone of the afore recorded objections were earlier and justified by them in their counter affidavit dated 16.07.2015 filed in W.P. (C)No.20561/2015, from which, as stated above, **Mayadevi** (supra) emanated. They argued that, therefore, when the Bank had themselves justified their action in conducting and completing the selection, answering every of the afore objections in an affidavit filed before this Court, they could not have resiled from it, except after obtaining leave. They thus contended that the actions of the Bank impugned in these writ petitions are _per se malafide_ , illegal and extremely questionable. 19. When this Court had heard the learned ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-15-** counsel for the petitioners on the previous posting day, I had called for the Judges Papers in W.P.(C)No.20561/2015. The counter affidavit filed by the Bank in the said case, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, justifies and explains every one of the afore extracted objections against the selection process completed by them. Their averments to such effect require a full reading, which is to the following effect: _“It is submitted in this connection that the lowest post available in a cooperative society is Part-time Sweeper. In the State level Co-operative Banks and District Level Co-operative Banks these posts were included in the staff pattern earlier. However in primary co-operative banks this post was included only through S.R.O.No. 40/2013 published with effect from 19.1.2013 with conditions. Even in primary co-operative societies the post of Part-time Sweeper has been provided only in class-I banks with a working capital of above Rs.25 lakhs. In societies other than Class-I societies the post of Part-time Sweeper was not included in the staff pattern. A perusal of Appendix-III will show that the post of Part-time Sweeper is not included in the staff pattern in other societies with less turn over. It is therefore submitted that the contention of_ **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-16-** _the petitioner in this regard has no legal substance as can be seen from the staff pattern of Co-operative Societies as available under Appendix-III. It is worth while to mention in this connection that persons who are employed in primary societies and in the lower categories including Peon, Watchman, Salesman etc. all of them are having higher educational qualifications since there was no legal bar for such qualified hands in making applications to the post of Attender, Peon etc. Therefore such of those persons are not qualified to apply for the post of Part Time Sweeper. Further a person who is appointed in a primary society as Peon, Watchman or Attender and having the qualification to apply for the higher post in the Apex or Central Society also will not opt for applying to the post of Sweeper since persons having three years of service in a primary society will only opt for higher posts and and when notified. It is therefore submitted that when vacancies are notified for the post of Sweeper, the number of applicants from the primary society will be less. Further some of the applications received by this respondent were from persons who are over qualified in terms of the prescription of qualification. It so happened since the post of Peon, Night Watchman, Attender etc. were filled up with persons with higher qualifications until the Rules were amended disabling persons with higher qualifications in applying for such lower posts. After the introduction of Part time Sweeper in the staff pattern in 2013, appointments were made only in very few societies. Those who were appointed does not have the requisite qualifying service as well. That is yet another reason for less number of applications from the employees working in the member societies applying in response to Exhibit P2., It is therefore submitted_ **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-17-** _that there is no merit in the contentions advanced. None of those persons who are working in the primary societies are prejudicially affected in any manner. It is submitted in this connection that the petitioners have made a conscious attempt to mislead the court by attempting to reproduce the proviso added to Rule 187 wherein the appointment of Peon, Watchman, Lift Operator which are to be made by the Public Service Commission where the qualifications are above the qualifications prescribed for Part time Sweeper, is sought to be introduced as a reservation provided under Rule 187 as well.”_ 20. As is luculent from the afore extracted averments, the Bank has justified the selections and explained why eighteen appointments were made, when only nine posts were notified; as also why the reservation from the Primary Co-operative Societies were impossible to be achieved, if not superfluous. As regards granting of marks, assessment of physical endurance of the candidates and conducting of interview of every person are concerned, this has also been answered by them in the aforementioned counter affidavit; further unequivocally justifying the fact that persons ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-18-** with higher qualifications were appointed, and citing the reason that it was done because the posts of Peon, Night Watchman and Attender were already filled up with persons with higher qualifications. 21. This Court, therefore, certainly finds it difficult to gather whether the Bank should have thereafter entered into an enquiry regarding the appointments made by them – which, interestingly, they did when their own appeal against the judgment in W.P.(C)No.20561/2015 was pending – especially when they had, through the afore averments in the counter affidavit, justified their actions and in making the same. **==> picture [391 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** impugned orders enumerated above, are edificed on conjectures. I say so because, the fact that only nine vacancies had been notified and eighteen persons appointed can certainly be not a ground to ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-19-** set aside appointments, except at the instance of candidates who are aspiring for appointment through the next selection. I fail to understand how the Bank could have taken this as a ground to set aside the appointments made by them. 23. As far as the 50% reservation to the Officers of the Primary Co-operative Banks under Rule 187 of the 'KCS Rules' is concerned, here again, there is no challenge from any candidate interested and nothing has been brought on record to even whisperingly indicate an objection having been made by any person in this regard. Obviously, therefore, the action of the Bank in using this can only be seen as an attempt to throw out the petitioners, who were selected and appointed by them themselves in the past. 24. More pertinently, once the Bank had made the afore extracted averments before this Court earlier, they could not have resiled from it, ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-20-** except if they withdrew them as per law. Not having done so, this is a clear case of an attempt of approbation and reprobation among alternatives, which they really did not have. 25. As regards the reasons (a), (b), (c) (d) and (g) in the impugned orders are concerned, they are certainly in the realm of speculation because, the fact that certain persons were given zero marks and that the files do not show how their physical endurance was assessed and further that 75% were interviewed on a single day to show that it was done in haste, are certainly surmises and no more; which, in any case, could not have been the hypostasis on which the impugned orders could have been built on. 26. Finally, as far as the allegation of some of the petitioners being over qualified is concerned, this appears to be edificed on the provisions contained in Rule 186(1)(ib)(vi) of the ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-21-** 'KCS Rules', which earlier mandated that a candidate who applied to the post of Part-time Sweeper should not have passed SSLC or equivalent. However, this stipulation was omitted through a subsequent amendment brought in vide GO(P) No.83/2017, which is to mean that such amendment would relate back to the original date. The further imputation against the petitioners that they had given wrong information is also on this very same ground and obviously, therefore, after the amendment had been brought in, it would lose its relevance. In any case, with the stand taken by the Bank earlier before this Court, as reflected in the afore extracted averments in their counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No.20561/2015, it was impermissible for them to have so found against the petitioners. 27. That being said, as I have already seen above, _**Mayadevi**_ (Supra) only granted liberty to ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-22-** the 'aggrieved candidates' to question the appointments, which, admittedly, has never been invoked by anyone. Even the counter affidavit filed by the Bank in this case do not say that anybody had impeached the selection process or the appointment of the petitioners; but it concedes that it was the Bank themselves who _suo motu_ decided to review all the appointments for the reasons reflected in the impugned orders. 28. Indubitably, therefore, I see no reason why the Bank could or should have embarked upon such an action, particularly when _**Mayadevi**_ (supra) had found the notification to be valid and when there were no complaints made by any person against any of the appointments, including that of the petitioners. The fact that the erstwhile Administrator of the Bank initiated action to set aside the appointments, subsequent to the supersession of the former Managing Committee, ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-23-** would itself render it limpid that he was sitting virtually as an Appellate Authority over earlier actions, though it has now been claimed to be in the manner of review of 'incorrect decisions'. 29. For the reasons above, it is apodictic that this Court cannot find favour with the submissions of the Bank; but before I close this judgment, I must deal with two precedents which have been cited by Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, namely ## _**A.Umarani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and**_ _**Others**_ [(2004) 7 SCC 112) and _**P.V.Prakasini v. KPSC and Others**_ [1993 (1) KLJ 632]. 30. In _**A.Umarani**_ (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the case of appointments made ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualifications. The challenge to the said appointments were made by 'aggrieved candidates' and not by the Bank themselves. Obviously when an 'aggrieved ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-24-** candidate' challenged such appointments, the question of inadequacy of educational qualifications, or the absence of other essential qualifications being obtained by the selected candidates, surely required to be considered. In the case at hand, there is no whisper that the petitioners were not qualified, but only that they had obtained SSLC, which is an over qualification as per the prescriptions of Rule 186(1)(ib)(vi) of the 'KCS Rules'. 31. However, as I have already said above, this issue is no longer relevant because, through the subsequent amendment of the year 2017, the stipulation that a candidate ought not have passed the SSLC or equivalent examinations has been omitted, which must be hence construed as it never existed in the Statute. 32. Therefore, in the absence of any challenge to the appointments of the petitioners by 'any ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-25-** aggrieved candidate', one fails to gather why the Bank should have, on its own, embarked upon the impugned actions. 33. As far as _**P.V.Prakasini**_ (supra) is concerned, this judgment is impelled by Sri.P.C.Sasidharan in substantiation of his contention that Public Authorities have the power to correct apparent mistakes in their own orders, even without a specific provision. This declaration was made in the context of the Public Service Commission having made a wrong advise, thus holding that their attempt to correct it was without error. I am afraid that the ratio in this judgment cannot be applied to these cases, because herein, the Bank was virtually trying to fish out the errors in the completed selection process and to then set aside the appointments made by themselves, under a notion of them being effected through corruption and nepotism. In fact, going by ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-26-** the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the Bank in these cases, it becomes undoubted that they have acted under an uncorroborated notion that the selections were tainted and that there was corruption and malpractice behind it. Therefore, it is not merely 'errors' which are being sought to be corrected, but the entire process has been sought to be set aside on mere suspicion, which is then sought to be substantiated by the reasons reflected in the impugned orders, extracted above. Such an exercise was unnecessary, especially when the applicable statutory provisions had been amended subsequently and when no candidate had challenged the selection at any point of time, even until now. 34. In the afore circumstances and principally because the notification has been found valid by this Court in _**Mayadevi**_ (supra), I am certain that ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-27-** the petitioners are entitled to relief. Resultantly, the orders impugned in these cases are set aside; further ordering that all necessary consequences shall follow forthwith. These writ petitions are thus ordered. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** akv **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-28-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29169/2018** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPYH OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 21.5.2015. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.8.2015 IN WP(C) NO.20561/2015. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FOR INTERVIEW ISSUED IN RESPECT OF SIXTH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 23.9.2015 OF THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATD 23.9.2015 OF THE SECOND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 23.9.2015 OF THE THIRD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 16.7.2016 OF THE FOURTH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 16.7.2016 OF THE FIFTH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 16.7.2016 OF THE SIXTH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 23.9.2015 OF THE SEVENTH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOT PRESS MEMO DATED 12.10.2017 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2017 IN W.A.NO.2048/2017. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REMOVAL ORDER DATED 9.11.2017 IN RESPECT OF THIRD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 TA TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION ORDER OF THE ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-29-** ||PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND 7 DATED 27.9.2016.| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P9|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION| ||BENCH AS REPORTED, MAYADEVI V.THRISSUR DCB IN| ||2018(3) KLT 330.| |EXHIBIT P10|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.7.2018| ||ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE SIXTH PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P11|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.7.2018| ||ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE SEVENTH PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P12|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.7.2018 OF| ||THE FIRST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE FIRST| ||PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P13|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.7.2018 IN| ||RESPECT OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P13(a)|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.7.2018 IN| ||RESPECT OF THE SIXTH PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P14|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.8.2018 OF| ||THE SECOND RESPONDENT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE| ||SECOND PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P15|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.8.2018| ||ISSUED IN RESPECT OF SECOND PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P16|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS DATE 13.8.2018| ||ISSUED IN RESPECT OF SEVENTH PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P17|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN ILR| ||2016 (2) KER 870.| |Exhibit P18|A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED| ||17/11/2017 IN W.A NO.2284/2017| |**RESPONDENT EXHIBITS**|| |EXHIBIT R1 A|TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER OF THE| ||SAID CANDIDATE| |EXHIBIT R1B|TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 7TH| ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-30-** PETITIONER EXHIBIT R1C TRUE COPY OF THE SCRUTINY REPORT EXHIBIT R1 D TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXHIBIT R1 E TRUE COPY OF THE SCRUTINY REPORT EXHIBIT R1 F TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER EXHIBIT R1 G TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR FOR SELECTION OF PART TIME SWEEPER DATED 7/2/2011 EXHIBIT R1 H TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE EXHIBIT R1 I TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION EXHIBIT R1 (J) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH IN W.A.No.2048 OF 2015. EXHIBIT P1(K) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT. EXHIBIT R1(L) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19/07/2018 EXHIBIT R1(M) TRUE COPY OF THE ONE OF SUCH NOTICE. **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-31-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29313/2018** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** |EXHIBIT P1|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN| |---|---| ||MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 21.05.2015.| |EXHIBIT P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.08.2015| ||IN W.P(C)NO.20561/2015| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||23.9.2015 ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P3(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||23.9.2015 ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P3(b)|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||23.9.2015 ISSUED TO 3RD PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P3(c)|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||23.9.2015 ISSUED TO 4TH PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P3(d)|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||23.9.2015 ISSUED TO 8TH PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P3(e)|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||23.9.2015 ISSUED TO 9TH PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P3(f)|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||23.9.2015 ISSUED TO 10TH PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P3(g)|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||23.9.2015 ISSUED TO 11TH PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P3(h)|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||4.8.15 ISSUED TO 6TH PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P3(i)|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||4.8.15 ISSUED TO 7TH PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P3(j)|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||16.7.16 ISSUED TO 5TH PETITIONER| ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-32-** |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED| |---|---| ||27.9.16,DECLARING THE SATISFACTORY COMPLETION| ||OF PROBATION OF THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 AND 8| ||TO 11.| |EXHIBIT P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOT PRESSED MEMO DATED| ||12.10.2017 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P6|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2017| ||IN W.A.NO.2048/2017| |EXHIBIT P7|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2017| ||REMOVING THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM SERVICE| |EXHIBIT P8|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.7.18 IN| ||W.A.NO.2284/2017| |EXHIBIT P9|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.07.2018| ||ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P10|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.07.2018| ||ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P11|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.07.20189| ||ISSUED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P12|A TRUE COPY OF THE 30.07.2018 SUBMITTED BY| ||THE 10TH PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P13|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.8.18 ISSUED BY| ||2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P13(a)|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.8.18 ISSUED BY| ||2ND RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P13(b)|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.8.18 ISSUED BY| ||2ND RESPONDENT TO 3RD PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P13(c)|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.8.18 ISSUED BY| ||2ND RESPONDENT TO 4TH PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P13(d)|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.8.18 ISSUED BY| ||2ND RESPONDENT TO 5TH PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P13(e)|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.8.18 ISSUED BY| ## **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** **-33-** 2ND RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P13(f) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.8.18 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 7TH PETITIONER EXHIBIT P13(g) TRUE COPY 0F ORDER DATED 13.8.18 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 8TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P13(h) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.8.18 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 9TH PETITIONER EXHIBIT P13(i) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.8.18 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 10TH PETITIONER EXHIBIT P13(j) TRUE COPY 0F ORDER DATED 13.8.18 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 11TH PETITIONER **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXHIBIT R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE EXHIBIT R1 C THE DETAILS OBTAINED FROM THE SCHOOL WHERE THE PETITIONER WAS STUDIED EXHIBIT R1 D TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE WITH REFERENCE TO LINSON EXHIBIT R1 E TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF SRI.A.M.SHAJU EXHIBIT R1F TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED FROM THE SCHOOL EXHIBIT R1 G TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXHIBIT R1 H TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE SCHOOL EXHIBIT R1 I TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR FOR SELECTION OF PART TIME SWEEPER DATED 7/2/2011 EXHIBIT R1 J TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE **WP(C)Nos.29313 & 29169/2018** ## **-34-** EXHIBIT R1 K TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION EXHIBIT R1 L TRUE COPY OF THE JUGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH IN WA NO.2048/2015 EXHIBIT R1 M TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT.19/7/2018 EXHIBIT R1 N TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19/7/2018 EXHIBIT R1 O TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.20/7/2018