R. SURESH KUMAR v STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

W.P(c).No.20432/2017 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **WEDNESDAY,THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 21ST BHADRA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 20432 of 2017** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **R.SURESH KUMAR AGED 49 YEARS S/O.M.UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, ESTATE MANAGER, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, CHITTALVETTY ESTATE, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT MATTATHIL HOUSE, MEENACHAL P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM-686574.** **BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, VETTITHITTA P.O., ALIMUKKU, PUNALUR, KOLLAM-689696.** **3 THE PERSONAL MANAGER THE STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED,VETTITHITTA P.O., ALIMUKKU, PUNALUR, KOLLAM689696.** - **4 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE KERALA STATE FARMING CORPORATION LIMITED, VETTITHITTA, ALIMUKKU, PUNALUR, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 689696.** **Addl.R4 is impleaded as per order dt.26.7.2018 in I.A.No.13535/2018** **SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH, SC, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN(ADDL.AG)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(c).No.20432/2017 2 ## _**P.V.ASHA, J.**_ -------------------------- ## W.P(C) No.20432 of 2017-D ------------------------------------------- _Dated this the 12[th] day of September, 2018_ ## _**JUDGMENT**_ The petitioner, who is working as an Estate Manager in the State Farming Corporation of Kerala (`Corporation' for short), is aggrieved by Ext.P16 notification issued by the Corporation for direct recruitment to the post of General Manager. 2. The petitioner joined the Corporation as Assistant Manager Gr.II on recruitment through Kerala Public Service Commission and he joined duty on 12.7.1996 based on Ext.P3 order of appointment. While working as Assistant Manager, he was put in full additional charge of Estate Manager, Group B as per Ext.P4 order dated 04.07.2001 and he continued to hold the full additional charge for the period from 4.7.2001 to 30.9.2002. Thereafter, as per Ext.P5 order dated 28.01.2011, he was put in charge of the post of Estate Manager (Group A) and he continued as such till 18.1.2013. While so, as per Ext.P6 order dated 18.01.2013, he was posted as General Manager in charge from 19.01.2013 to 18.02.2013. He again continued to be in charge of the post of Estate Manager for the period from 19.02.13 to 16.12.2015. While so, Special Rules were amended, incorporating promotion also as a method of appointment to the post of Assistant Manager, in addition to direct recruitment. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted regular promotion as Estate Manager as per Ext.P9 order dated 17.12.2015 and he has been working as Estate Manager on regular basis from 17.12.2015 onwards. 3. The qualification and method of appointment to the post of General W.P(c).No.20432/2017 3 Manager under the Corporation is provided in Ext.P11/Ext.R2(f) staff pattern approved by the Government and Kerala Public Service Commission. Method of appointment to the post is 'direct recruitment and by promotion'. Promotion is from the post of Estate manager or Manager (Operation). Qualification for promotion is basic qualification (degree in Agriculture, Forestry or Botany) with a minimum of 5 years experience in the category [Estate Manager or Manager (Operation)]. For direct recruitment 7 years experience in senior management level in a large organisation with preference to those having MBA is required, apart from the basic qualification. Age limit prescribed for direct recruitment is below 45 years. 4. The post of General Manager in the Corporation became vacant in the year 2016, consequent to retirement. The petitioner's case is that he is the only candidate who is eligible for promotion as General Manager. According to the petitioner, he is fully qualified for appointment to the post by promotion, and appointment to the said post was being made all along by promotion only. Ext.P16 notification was issued on 14.06.2017, while the petitioner was awaiting promotion as General Manager. Immediately thereupon, he submitted Ext.P17 representation before the Secretary to Government and Ext.P18 representation before the Managing Director. The petitioner submits that representation was submitted before the Chairman also. Petitioner pointed out that when the vacancy of General Manager arose in the year 2012, the Corporation had promoted Sri Joselet Mathew as per Ext.P20 resolution dated 06.11.2012 based on sanction accorded in Ext.P19 order of Government issued on 01.11.2012, at a time when Sri Joselet Mathew was working W.P(c).No.20432/2017 4 as Estate Manager. According to the petitioner, he is fully qualified for appointment to the post by promotion, and appointment to the said post was being made all along by promotion only. In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P16 notification. 5. As per order dated 28.06.2017 an interim order was passed directing the Managing Director to pass orders on the request of the petitioner in Ext.P18 representation after affording him an opportunity of hearing. The proceedings pursuant to the notification for direct recruitment were kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the Managing Director passed Ext.P21 order stating that the petitioner does not have 5 years' experience in the category of Estate Manager, which is a mandatory requirement for promotion, since he was promoted as Estate Manager only on 17.12.2015. It was further stated that the broken periods of service as Estate Manager in charge while the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Manager cannot be taken into account for promotion as General Manager. Though, it was submitted that the petitioner was working as Estate Manager in charge from 4.7.2001 to 30.09.2002; 29.1.2011 to 18.1.2013 and from 19.02.2113 to 16.12.2015 before his regular promotion to the post on 17.12.2015, it was stated that the broken irregular periods cannot be treated as equal to the experience acquired in the category and therefore his claim cannot be appreciated. It was further stated that the promotion committee had also opined that the petitioner was not eligible to be promoted to the post of General Manager as per the approved staff pattern and Clause 14(b) and Clause 26(a) of the Staff regulation of the Corporation. Accordingly, the petitioner's representation was W.P(c).No.20432/2017 5 rejected. 6. The writ petition was thereafter amended incorporating the challenge against Ext.P21. According to the petitioner, denial of promotion to him is illegal and arbitrary when the rules insist only 5 years experience and not 5 years service. According to him, the only ground on which the promotion is denied is the deficiency in his experience as Estate Manager. 7. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit reiterating the contentions in Ext.P21 order. According to them, as per Ext.R2(a) staff pattern, approved by the Government, there are 2 methods for appointment to the post of General Manager i.e, direct recruitment and promotion; for promotion one should have minimum of 5 years experience in the category of Estate Manager/Manager (Operation). It is their further contention that the qualification and scale of pay for the post of General Manager were approved by the Government as per order dated 17.11.1992. It is stated that the Board of Directors of the Corporation is the appellate authority in respect of any decision of the Managing Director as provided in the proviso to Regulation 3 of Ext P12-the Regulations in respect of the Officers and Staff of the State Farming Corporation of Kerala Ltd. approved by the Government and that the decision by the Board of Directors is final and binding on all concerned. It is further stated that the petitioner does not have 5 years experience as Estate Manager as he was promoted to that post only on 17.12.2015. In Para.7 of the counter affidavit it was stated that : _“..... It was because there was no eligible employee available and had any requisite experience qualification as Estate_ W.P(c).No.20432/2017 6 _Manager, and also as the petitioner was having only one year and five months service as Estate Manager the Corporation decided for Direct recruitment....”_ It was further stated that the method of recruitment was decided to be by way of direct recruitment and not by promotion, as per the Board decision of the Corporation. As per Regulation 26(a), promotion to various posts should be entirely at the discretion of the management, having regard to merit, seniority, efficiency, amenability to discipline, etc. All promotions to higher posts are considered by the appropriate promotion committee to be appointed by the Board of Directors and therefore the 2[nd] respondent does not have any role in the appointment. It is further stated that the petitioner is not qualified for promotion based on his experience as Estate Manager in charge. In para.11 it is again stated that it was due to absence of any qualified hand eligible for promotion with 5 years experience that the Corporation issued the relevant notification. It is stated that Sri Joselet Mathew who was promoted as General Manager was having 16 years' service in the feeder category of Estate Manager. It is also stated that only after amendment to the regulations by which promotion was made one of the methods of appointment to the post of Estate Manager that the petitioner could think of promotion as General Manager. Till such time the only method of appointment to the post of Estate Manager was direct recruitment and only such persons who were appointed as Estate Manager by direct recruitment could aspire for promotion as General Manager. It is further stated that the Board is vested with the full powers to relax or even to dispense with the requirements of such regulations and Ext.P21 order is perfectly in tune with the W.P(c).No.20432/2017 7 regulations. 8. The respondents filed an additional counter affidavit producing Ext.R2(f) – the full text of the staff pattern of the Corporation, pointing out different methods of appointment to several of the posts either by promotion alone, by direct recruitment alone, by promotion failing which by direct recruitment, etc. 9. The Board of Directors of the Corporation was impleaded as additional 4[th] respondent as per order in I.A.No.13535/2018. Thereafter, the Corporation filed their counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated that since the method of appointment to the post of General Manager is by direct recruitment and also by promotion, it is upto the discretion of the Corporation to decide which should be the method of appointment. It is further stated that in order to be promoted, one should have the requisite experience of 5 years in the feeder category. Producing Ext.R4(b)order dated 26.05.2018 of the Government it is stated that the appointments to the post of Executive officers in Public Sector Undertakings have to be made by the Public Enterprises Selection Board in order to see that competent managerial persons are appointed to the pivotal post of executive. It is their further case that when the Director Board has taken a decision not to resort to promotion, but to direct recruitment for appointment to the post of General Manager, the said decision can not be said to be illegal. It is also stated that the Managing Director had considered the representation submitted by the petitioner in tune with the directions of this Court and the decision of the Managing Director was only with respect to the qualification of the petitioner and the said decision of the Managing Director cannot have any effect W.P(c).No.20432/2017 8 on the decision of the Director Board. It is also stated that there is a provision for appeal before the Director Board, against the decision of the Managing Director. 10. The petitioner has filed an additional reply affidavit producing Exts.P27 and P28 orders pointing out that even before amendment to the rules, as per Ext.P27, the respondents have granted promotion to one Sakthi Kumar who was working as Manager (Operation) as per Ext.P27 order, as General Manager. It was approved by the Government as per Ext.P28 order dated 13.04.2010. 11. Heard Sri B.Mohanlal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ranjit Thampan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation and considered the pleadings and contentions. 12. The method of appointment to the post of General Manager is by direct recruitment and promotion, as is seen from Ext.P11/Ext.R2(f) staff pattern. That would show that appointment can be made either by direct recruitment or by promotion. As contended on behalf of the respondents, it is seen from the staff pattern Ext.P11/R2(b) that it is upto the discretion of the Director Board to decide which method should be resorted to. Even if the Corporation has been resorting to promotions in all the earlier occasions, it does not stand in their way to resort to direct recruitment which is the first method of appointment to the post given in the staff pattern. However, when the petitioner asserts that the only reason for resorting to direct recruitment is on the finding that he is not qualified, it is necessary to examine the circumstances under which Ext.P16 notification was issued. 13. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3, the reason for W.P(c).No.20432/2017 9 resorting to direct recruitment was stated to be the non availability of qualified hands for promotion and the ineligibility of the petitioner was stated to be on account of non completion of 5 years experience as Estate Manager. Though the regulations provide for appointment by direct recruitment as well as by promotion, the reason stated in para.7 of the counter affidavit of respondents 2 and 3 is that “ _it was because there were no eligible employee available and had any requisite experience qualification as estate manager, and also as the petitioner was having only one year and 5 months service as Estate Manager, the Corporation decided for direct recruitment. The method of recruitment was decided to be as direct recruitment and not by promotion as per the Board decision of the Corporation._ ” Thus all along the contention of respondents 2 and 3 is that the reason for taking a decision to resort to direct recruitment was the ineligibility of the petitioner as well as the non availability of qualified hands for promotion, despite the fact that the Corporation is free to resort to direct recruitment or to promotion, even otherwise. In this context it is necessary to examine whether the petitioner was eligible for promotion. The qualification stipulated for promotion in Ext.P11/Ext.R2(f) is “minimum of 5 years experience in the category of Estate Manager or Manager (Operations) with basic qualification”. Basic qualification is Degree in Agriculture/Forestry or Botany. There is no dispute with respect to the basic qualification of the petitioner. He is an M.Sc holder in Agriculture and he joined the Corporation on 12.07.1996 as Assistant Manager on appointment through PSC. There was no promotional avenue for the Assistant Manager to the post of Estate Manager till rules were amended in the year 2015 as W.P(c).No.20432/2017 10 per Ext.P7 order incorporating promotion as one of the methods of appointment. The qualification fixed for promotion is 5 years service as Assistant Manager. Based on this amendment, petitioner was promoted as Estate Manager as per Ext.P9 order dated 17.12.2005 at a time when he was having more than 19 years of service as Assistant Manager. Ext.P10 certificate issued by the Manager would show that the petitioner was in charge of the Estate Manager for the period from 5.7.2001 to 30.09.2002 for a period of one year 2 months and 26 days; from 29.01.2011 to 18.01.2013 for one year and 2 months and from 19.02.13 to 16.12.2015 for a period of one year 9 months and 27 days and thereafter from 17.12.2015 onwards he has been working as Estate Manager on promotion. Exts.P4 to P6 would show that he was in full additional charge of the post of Estate Manager during the aforesaid period prior to his promotion to that post. Thus it cannot be said that he does not have experience of 5 years in the category of Estate Manager. Ext.P16 notification for direct recruitment was issued on 13.06.2017. As on that day, he had got more than one and half years of experience after his promotion and more than 5 years' experience on appointment as Estate Manager in charge. What is prescribed as qualification for promotion is minimum 5 years' experience in the category of Estate Manager. It is not stated that what is required is minimum of 5 years service. One gets experienced even in the absence of regular appointment to a post. The petitioner was put on full additional charge of Estate Manager as per Ext.P4 order dated 04.07.2001 in the place of one Sri.Rajasekharan Nair, who was the then Estate Manager Group B. Thereafter, when Sri Rajasekharan Nair, who was Estate Manager W.P(c).No.20432/2017 11 Group A was granted leave, the petitioner was again put in charge of Estate Manager Group A as per Ext.P5 order dated 28.01.2011 and he continued there till Ext.P6 order was issued when the petitioner was put in charge of General Manager. Therefore, Exts.P4 to P7 would show the experience gained by the petitioner who physically served as Estate Manager. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that there was nobody eligible for promotion or that the petitioner was not having the qualification of experience for promotion and the decision of the Board of Directors to resort to direct recruitment because of non-availability of qualified hands for promotion and ineligibility of the petitioner is baseless and without considering factors which are relevant. 14. Even though Sri. Ranjit Thampan, the learned Senior Counsel, strenuously argued, referring to the different methods of appointment to various posts in Ext.R2(f) and the Regulations Ext.P11, that the Corporation has every authority to take a decision as to which of the two methods is to be resorted to, in a case where two methods are given in the Rules, I find that all these are after thoughts after arriving at a finding that the petitioner, is not having the requisite experience and that there are no other qualified hands available for promotion, as stated in Ext P21. Ext.P21 order of the 2[nd] respondent does not even refer to the decision of the Director Board. When the reason for taking a decision to resort to direct recruitment is stated to be the non availability of qualified hands and that reason is that the petitioner does not have 5 years' experience, I do not find any relevance to the different methods of appointment or the discretion or authority of the Director Board in taking a decision W.P(c).No.20432/2017 12 as to the method to be resorted to. It is true that there are several posts like Sl.No.9, 9A, 15, 19, 20, 21 and 24 which provide for promotion failing which direct recruitment as the method of appointment. That means, direct recruitment can be resorted to only in the absence of qualified hands for promotion, as provided in Regulation 14(b) of Ext P12. At the same time, in respect of the posts at Sl.Nos.14, 16, 17 and 35, the method of appointment is promotion alone. Then also, in the event of non-availability of qualified hands for promotion, it is open for Director Board to decide as to how appointment can be made in such circumstances. In respect of Sl.Nos.2, 4, 5, 6, 7 12, and 13 the method of appointment provided is direct recruitment and promotion. In these cases it is open to the Board of Directors to decide which method of appointment should be resorted to. But in this case despite such authority on the respondent Corporation, the reason stated in the counter affidavit of the Managing Director (in paragraphs 7 and 11) is the ineligibility of the petitioner. Though the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that Ext.P21 order was passed by the Managing Director in obedience to the directions of this Court to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner in which he requested for promotion and that the said decision of the Managing Director or the reasons stated in that decision while considering such a request of the petitioner, cannot be taken as the decision of the Board of Directors and that any such decision is not binding on the Director Board, I do not find any reason for the 2[nd] respondent for not disclosing such a decision if any was taken by the Director Board, when it is permissible under the Staff pattern. Being the head of the Corporation, he cannot be so oblivious of it and to W.P(c).No.20432/2017 13 deal with the eligibility of the petitioner, in order to reject his representation. In Ext.P18 representation as well as in the representation addressed to the Government, the petitioner had requested to promote him against the vacancy which was remaining unfilled from August, 2016 onwards, pointing out that he was fully qualified with sufficient experience. While issuing Ext.P21 order rejecting his request on the ground that he did not have 5 years experience in the category of Estate Manager which is a mandatory requirement, and rejecting his contention regarding his experience as Estate Manager, the 2[nd] respondent did not state anything in Ext.P21 regarding the decision of the Director Board if any taken for resorting to direct recruitment. It is settled law that the validity of an order has to be judged on the basis of reasons stated in it and the reasons cannot be allowed to be supplemented by way of affidavit, as held by the Apex Court in **Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji** : AIR 1952 SC 16, **Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner** : AIR 1978 SC 851, **T.P.Senkumar v. Union of India** : AIR 2017 SC 2628, etc. Therefore, even though the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents have filed additional counter affidavit in order to improve their contentions in Ext.P21 producing Ext.R2(f) the full text of the staff pattern providing for the method of appointment to different posts in order to assert the contention that appointment can be made either by direct recruitment or by promotion and subsequently Corporation itself in its counter affidavit stated that the decision to resort to direct recruitment is in tune with the staff pattern, I find from the pleadings that the only reason for not filling up the post which remained vacant from August, 2016 and for issuing Ext.P6 notification was the W.P(c).No.20432/2017 14 assumption that the petitioner is not eligible for want of requisite experience. 15. In this context it is also relevant to note that the vacancies in the post of General Manager was being filled up all along by way of promotion as pointed out by the petitioner with reference to Exts.P23 and P24 produced along with the reply affidavit and Exts.P27 and P28 produced along with the reply affidavit submitted on 3.9.2018. 16. Though it is true that the petitioner had not impleaded the Corporation and the Corporation did not have an occasion to file their counter affidavit, before the 2[nd] respondent filed it, it is pertinent to note that the Corporation was impleaded after the hearing was almost over and the counter affidavit of the Corporation happened to be filed apparently, only thereafter, but with a different version. It is pertinent to note that the 4[th] respondent even relied on Ext.R4(b) order issued on 26.05.2018 in order to support Ext.P16 notification issued on 14.06.2017. 17. Therefore, though it is open to resort to either of the methods of appointment to fill up the vacancy of General Manager, and though Ext.P21 order was not one passed by the Director Board of the Corporation, it is evident that the reason for arriving at the decision to resort to direct recruitment is as stated in Ext.P21 and in the counter affidavit of respondents 2 and 3. 18. As the petitioner has already acquired more than 5 years' experience as Estate Manager, by physically performing the duties attached to that post, based on the posting as per Exts.P4 to P6 and Ext.P9 orders, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not qualified for promotion. Therefore, the decision to resort to direct recruitment W.P(c).No.20432/2017 15 under the assumption that the petitioner is not eligible for promotion or that there is no qualified hand for promotion, is arrived at without considering the factors which are relevant. Ext.P16 notification issued on the basis of such a decision is therefore liable to be set aside. 19. In the above circumstances, Ext.P16 notification is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion within a period of one month, in the light of the above observations. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. **Sd/-** _**(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)**_ _rtr/_ ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC.AGRICULTURE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE M.SC. AGRICULTURE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SFCK/PER/KPSC/AM/2977 DATED 12-021996 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SFCK/PER/T&P/865 DATED 04-07-2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P5** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER** W.P(c).No.20432/2017 16 **NO.SFCK/PER/O.O/3545 DATED 28-01-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SFCK/PER/O.O/G.M./2012-2013/3548 DATED 18-01-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS)NO.238/2015/AD DATED 05-12-2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SFCK/PER/3234 DATED 17-12-2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SFCK/PER/PROMOTION/2015-2016/3236 DATED 17-12-2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER CERTIFICATE NO.SFCK/PER/S.K./2016-17 DATED 30-072016.** - **EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE STAFF PATTERN TO THE POST OF GENERAL MANAGER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT CORPORATION.** - **EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGULATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CORPORATION APPROVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONDUCT AND INTEGRITY CERTIFICATE NO.SFCK/PER/S.K/2016-17/1605 DATED 3007-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.SFCK/PER/S.K/2016-17/1604 DATED 3007-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.SFCK/PER/S.K./2016-17/1603 DATED 3007-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** W.P(c).No.20432/2017 17 **EXHIBIT P16** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.SFCK/PER/GM/2017-18 DATED 13-06-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15-06-2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P18** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12-04-2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (RT)NO.2155/12/AD DATED 01-11-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SFCK/PER/O.O.GM/2012-2013/2654 DATED 06-11-2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SRI.JOSELET MATHEW.** **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SFCK/MD/2017/42 DT.5.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P22 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SFCK/Accts/97-98, 1008 DT.4.6.1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P23 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SFCK/PER/D&Resp./1656 DT.13.09.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P24 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SFCK/PER/00/201213/651 DT.29.5.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P25 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SFCK/PER/SENIORITY/2018-19/796 DT.23.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P26 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SFCK/PER/PROMOTION/2018-19/858 DT.30.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXT.R2(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF STAFF PATTERN TO THE POST OF GENERAL MANAGER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S CORPORATION.** **EXT.R2(b) : TRUE COPY OF REGULATION IN RESPECT OF OFFICERS AND STAFF OF THE STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.** **EXT.R2(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE CADRE CERTIFICATE OF THE** W.P(c).No.20432/2017 18 **PETITIONER DT.30.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.R2(d) : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION TO THE POST OF GENERAL MANAGER DT.13.6.2017.** **EXT.R2(e) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.5.10.17 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.R2(f) : THE STAFF PATTERN APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.**