SAHADEVAN T.K. v STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016** ## **PETITIONER:** SAHADEVAN T.K., AGED 45 YEARS S/O KUTTAPPAN T.U, OFFICE ATTENDANT, PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM 682 011 BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.SUNAND ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 2 SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 3 THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT, KOCHI 682 031 4 THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY) HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI 682 031 5 THE DISTRICT JUDGE DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM 682 011 BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE, CGC SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).18816/2020, 19256/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 19256 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 REJI KUMAR T V THEKKEPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKOMBU P.O, KOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM - 686 662, WORKING AS OFFICE ATTENDANT,MACT, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. 2 SHEEJA B.P D/O. B.V PRABHAKARAN, KARTHIKA, KOLLENDE PARAMBIL,SAMSKARA JN, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 682 025, WORKING AS OFFICE CLERK, MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. 3 GOPIKA N.G D/O. M.A GOPALAN, MANDANATH HOUSE,PALLIPPARAMBUKAV ROAD,THRIPUNNITHURA, ERNAKULAM - 682 301. WORKING AS LD TYPIST,DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. 4 SAHADEVAN T.K AGED 46 YEARS S/O. KUTTAPPAN T.U, THALAMUTHAYIL ,CHOVVARA P.O, ALUVA P.O ERNAKULAM - 683 571 WORKING AS OFFICE ATTENDANT, PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. K.P.PRADEEP T.T.BIJU K.P.KESAVAN NAIR SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN T.THASMI WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 3 ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 THE SECRETARY SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT HOME (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. - 5 THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL,HIGH COURT, KOCHI - 682 031. - 6 THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY) HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031. - 7 THE DISTRICT JUDGE DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, PARK AVE ROAD,KOCHI, ERNAKULAM - 682 011. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE, CGC SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).19598/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 4 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 18816 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 SHYJU DAS. P., AGED 47 YEARS SON OF P.K. DASAN, OFFICE ATTENDENT, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM-682 011, RESIDING AT POYYAKULATH HOUSE, SHOBANAM, PALLURUTHY, VELIE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-682 006. 2 SHAJI M.C., AGED 49 YEARS SON OF M.P. CHACKO, OFFICE ATTENDANT GR-II, MACT, PERUMBAVOOR, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542, RESIDING AT MEENPILLIL HOUSE, VETTAMPARA P.O., KULANGATTUKUZHY, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686 691. 3 GOPIKA M.G., D/O.GOPALAN M.A., LD TYPIST, DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM-682 011., RESIDING AT MANDANATH HOUSE, PALLIPARAMBU KAVU, THRIPUNNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 301. BY ADVS. K.P.PRADEEP SRI.T.T.BIJU SMT.T.THASMI SHRI.HAREESH M.R. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 5 - 2 SECRETARY, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. - 3 SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. - 4 SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. - 5 THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT, KOCHI-682 031. - 6 THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682 031. - 7 THE DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, PARK AVE ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 011. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE, CGC SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).19598/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 6 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **[WP(C) Nos.19598/2016, 18816/2020, 19256/2017]** I am considering these three writ petitions together since they involve analogous, if not identical, factual circumstances and forensic issues. 2. As per the petitioners, in the year 2013, the Government of Kerala issued an order dated 18.05.2013, creating supernumerary posts to accommodate physically handicapped persons who were in temporary service during the years 1999 to 2003. They say that they were working in the category of Clerks, LD Typists and Office Attendants in the entry cadre in the Civil Judicial Wing of the State service and that the probations of some of them were also declared in the years 2014 and 2015. 3. The petitioners assert that their juniors in service were promoted to the higher cadre but that they were not so considered for the sole reason that they were not entited to any of the service benefits available to the permanent employees in such service on account of a subsequent Government order, namely G.O(P)No.01/16/SJD dated 03.02.2016. They say that on the basis of this order, the declaration of some of their probations were rejected, though it was granted with respect to WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 7 some petitioners, which were also then subsequently withdrawn through an order dated 14.02.2017, for the reason that those persons who obtained reappointments consequent to the Government Order dated 18.05.2013 would not come within the purview of the staff strength for the purpose of ratio promotion. 4. The petitioners allege that solely because of the Government order issued subsequent to their appointment, namely G.O(P)No.01/16/SJD dated 03.02.2016 (a copy of which has been produced on record as Ext.P4 along with the writ petitions), they have been denied declaration of probation. They assert that their reappointments cannot be treated to be merely supernumerary, though their orders of appointments mandate that these posts will cease to exist on their retirement and that they are not entitled to promotion and seniority as in the case of regular employees. 5. The petitioners thus challenge clauses 5 and 6 of Ext.P4 Government order dated 03.02.2016, to the extent to which there is an inhibition of declaration of their probation in service, regularisation as also denial of seniority in promotion. 6. I have heard Dr.K.P.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri.Sunil Jacob Jose, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Kerala and WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 8 Sri.Sunilkumar Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader. 7. Before I venture into the merits of the contentions of the rival parties, I must record that the issues dealt with in these writ petitions have already been answered by a learned Division Bench of this Court in the judgment delivered in WA No.2633/2017 and connected matters. After assessing similar contentions, as have been impelled by the petitioners in these cases, the learned Division Bench declared the law as under: “12. It is not in dispute that in Umadevi's case (supra), the Constitution Bench had deprecated the practice of regularizing persons engaged on temporary basis. Therefore, as far as the petitioners are concerned, they were all engaged for short periods on a casual basis in various departments of the State during the period between 16/8/1999 till 31/12/2003. Under normal circumstances and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court aforesaid, they were not entitled for regularization. The Apex Court in the judgment aforesaid had only permitted regularization of persons who had been irregularly appointed, but duly qualified in duly sanctioned posts and have been working for ten years or more without the intervention of orders of the courts or Tribunals. The regularization of such employees was directed to be considered as a one time measure. It is apparent that petitioners will not fall within the said category as they were working only for short periods. However, Government as a policy, to favour differently abled persons, decided to permanently appoint them in service by creating supernumerary posts. It need not be stated that supernumerary posts are additional posts outside the cadre strength. Even in the Government Order dated 18/5/2013, it was specifically mentioned that the posts in which the incumbents are reappointed shall stand extinguished on their retirement. Therefore, there is clear intendment that their appointment in the said post was until their retirement. In other words, they were not treated as regular employees of the State who could have claimed other benefits as available to a regular employee WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 9 appointed through Kerala Public Service Commission and to be governed by the service conditions applicable to regular employees. When the appointments were made based on Government Order dated 18/5/2013, the petitioners could not have claimed anything more than what was specified under the said Government Order. It is when a doubt had arisen regarding their claim for other benefits that a clarification had been issued as per Government order dated 3/2/2016 GO(P)No.1/2016. It is stated that 2677 differently abled persons were appointed by creating supernumerary posts and those posts will cease to be in effect on their retirement. Several departments had sought for clarification regarding their service conditions, seniority, probation, promotion etc. Government after having considered the entire issues decided to extend leave, travelling allowance, daily allowance and medical reimbursement as extended to regular employees including increment, and provident fund will be in terms of the National Pension Scheme. They were also entitled for pension as per the National Pension Scheme and their age of retirement will be 60 years. But as far as seniority is concerned, it is stated that since the candidates who had appointed will retire in the same post, they will not be entitled for benefits of regular employees like seniority and probation. With reference to promotion also, it is indicated that there would not be a combined seniority list in respect of supernumerary employees and regular employees and they will not be entitled for promotion as provided for regular employees. With reference to transfer also, it is stated that those persons will not be entitled for inter-department or interdistrict transfer. The disciplinary action will be in terms with the Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. In the Government Order dated 18/5/2013, it was specifically stated that the candidates would retire in the same post and once they retire, the supernumerary post shall stand extinguished. Once it is stated that they shall remain in the same post and the appointments were made pursuant to the said Government Order, apparently they cannot claim any promotion. In fact, some of the departments had declared probation and had also included them in the seniority list. But from the factual aspects involved in the case and as narrated above, those persons who have been appointed pursuant to Government Order dated 18/5/2013 by itself have to be treated as a separate class who do not have the right to be promoted since they were accommodated only as a gesture of goodwill extended by the Government WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 10 especially on account of the fact that they were differently abled. 13. By referring to judgment in **Union of India and Others v. Dr.Akhilesh Chandra Agrawal** [(1998) 4 SCC 107], Sri.Brijesh Mohan, learned counsel appearing for some of the applicants, submitted that the persons who have been appointed in supernumerary posts cannot be given any differentiation from that of persons appointed in regular posts. Apparently the facts of that case was different. In that case, in an earlier proceedings, there was a clear direction that the appellants will be treated as regularized in Group A of Central Health Service from 1/1/1973 or the date of their first initial appointment in the service and consequential orders were also passed. It is contrary to the said directions that the Tribunal held that those appointed in supernumerary posts cannot claim administrative powers and have to be treated as different ones. 14. In fact, what is required to be considered is the terms of appointment. As already stated, the Government under normal circumstances could not have regularized casual workers employed during short period of service when the appointment was not made by complying with the procedure established by law. All these persons were working only for short periods and were not selected by any selection process known to law. But the Government consciously took a decision to give them regular appointments on account of the fact that they were differently abled persons. When the Government had relaxed the norms and had gone beyond their powers to extend certain benefits to a class of people, necessarily the terms of appointment have to be strictly adhered to. When it was specifically stated that they will have to remain in the said post until their retirement, it clearly indicates that it is not a regular appointment and it cannot be compared with the appointment made after a due selection process.” 8. Obviously, on account of the afore emphatic declaration by the learned Division Bench, it would not be necessary for this Court to enter into the contentions of the petitioners independently in this matter, but Dr.K.P.Pradeep submits that the WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 11 judgment of the learned Division Bench would not apply to his clients because Ext.P4 Government Order was issued only on 03.02.2016, subsequent to the orders of appointment of his clients. His specific contention is that since his clients have been appointed in the years 2013 and 2014, the restrictive clauses of Ext.P4 Government Order dated 03.02.2016, would not apply and he bolsters his argument by submitting that as per clause 69(c) of the Kerala Financial Code (Volume 1), it is mandatory that all persons appointed in the supernumerary posts should be appointed in the next arising vacancies and that they thus become entitled for all service benefits. Dr.K.P.Pradeep, therefore, prays that these writ petitions be considered de hors the declarations of the Hon'ble Division Bench. 9. The afore contention of Dr.K.P.Pradeep was vociferously contested by Sri.Sunil Jacob Jose, learned standing counsel appearing for the High Court of Kerala, by pointing out that even in the original appointment orders of the petitioners, it was made clear that the posts created to accommodate them will cease on the date of their retirement on superannuation. He submitted that, therefore, when the petitioners have accepted employment knowing fully well that the posts will cease from the date of their WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 12 retirement, they cannot claim any benefit more than what has been granted to them and therefore, that even if Ext.P4 is not considered to be retroactive, it would obtain to the petitioners no benefit as has been claimed by them. He, therefore, prayed that these writ petitions be dismissed. 10. The afore submissions of Sri.Sunil Jacob Jose was adopted and affirmed by the learned Government Pleader, Sri.Sunilkumar Kuriakose, who also submitted that since the petitioners had accepted the appointments being fully aware of the conditions in their orders of appointment that the posts will cease on the date of their retirement, they cannot now claim any further benefit even from the touchstone of clause 69(c) of the Kerala Financial Code. He concluded his submissions by saying that the afore extracted paragraph 14 of the judgment of the learned Division Bench would cover the field as far as the petitioners in these cases are also concerned. 11. I have considered the afore submissions and have also examined the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench very closely. 12. As has been extracted above, the declarations of the learned Division Bench is available in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the judgment in WA No.2633/2017 and it is clear that the WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 13 learned Bench had considered all the issues projected by the petitioners in these cases in great detail. I do not see any reason to differ from the conclusions of the learned Division Bench and in fact, am of the view that the same are befetting affirmation by this Court also. 13. That said, I must also address an adscititious submissions of Dr.K.P.Pradeep that the aforementioned judgment of the learned Division Bench has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by some of the parties therein. Even if this submission is accepted, the mere fact that an SLP has been filed against the judgment of the learned Division Bench would not stop me from following the same and in fact, in terms of propriety, it is incumbent that I follow the same, so that the petitioners can also then obtain further recourse, if they are so interested, as per law. 14. As far as the contentions of Dr.K.P.Pradeep, founded on clause 69(c) of the Kerala Financial Code is concerned, as rightly stated by Sri.Sunilkumar Kuriakose, this issue has been specifically considered by the learned Division Bench in paragraph 14 of the judgment aforementioned. 15. I am, therefore, of the firm view that nothing remains for a fresh consideration by this Court and that I am bound in WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 14 law to follow the judgment of the learned Division Bench, which I propose to do. In the afore circumstances, following the judgment of the learned Division Bench in WA No.2633/2017 and connected matters, I dismiss these writ petitions. **Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** **stu** WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 15 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19598/2016** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: - EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) NO 40/13/SJD DATED 18-05-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) NO 63/13/SJD DATED 07-08-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO A1-5/2014 DATED 05-02-2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) NO 01/16/SJD DATED 03-02-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23-092015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM NO A1-12749/2015 DATED 17/10/2015 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2810-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO H435690/15 DATED 27-01-2016 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 16 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19256/2017** PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO (P) NO. 40/13/SJD DATED 18-05-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) NO. 63/13/SJD DATED 07-08-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A1-5/2013 DATED 26-10-2013 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO A1-15/2013 DATED 01-02-2014 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P3(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A1-5/2014 DATED 0502-2014 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER GO(P) NO 01/16/SJD DATED 03-02-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KERALA FINANCIAL CODE. - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM NO A1-2305/2016 DATED 18-06-2016 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM NO A1-7/2017 DATED 14-02-2017 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT. WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 17 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18816/2020** PETITIONER ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) NO.40/13/SJD DATED 18/05/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) NO.63/13/SJD DATED 07/08/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1-5/2017 DATED 11/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1-10/2013 DATED 13/09/2013 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER GO(P) NO.01/16/SJD DATED 03/02/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KERALA FINANCIAL CODE. WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 18 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19256/2017** PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO (P) NO. 40/13/SJD DATED 18-05-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) NO. 63/13/SJD DATED 07-08-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A1-5/2013 DATED 26-10-2013 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO A1-15/2013 DATED 01-02-2014 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P3(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A1-5/2014 DATED 0502-2014 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER GO(P) NO 01/16/SJD DATED 03-02-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KERALA FINANCIAL CODE. - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM NO A1-2305/2016 DATED 18-06-2016 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM NO A1-7/2017 DATED 14-02-2017 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT. WP(C) NO. 19598 OF 2016 19 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19598/2016** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: - EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) NO 40/13/SJD DATED 18-05-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) NO 63/13/SJD DATED 07-08-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO A1-5/2014 DATED 05-02-2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) NO 01/16/SJD DATED 03-02-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23-092015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM NO A1-12749/2015 DATED 17/10/2015 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2810-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO H435690/15 DATED 27-01-2016 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.