Sajin Babu K.S. v. State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **MONDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 29TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 34578 of 2017-V** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 SAJIN BABU K.S. AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. SASIDHARAN K, MALITHARAYIL, VADAKKUMTHALA P.O,KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 690 536** - **2 SUJIMON S AGED 39 YEARS,S/O. SUDEVAN G, MUDIYILAZHIKATHU VEEDU,THRIPPILAZHIKOM P.O,KUNDARA 691 509** - **3 JIJIL P.K AGED 33 YEARS,S/O. VELAYUDHAN P, SREEPADAM HOUSE, MUNDAMBRA, UGRAPPURAM P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 639** - **4 MUNEER K AGED 33 YEARS,S/O. ABOOBACKER K, KUZHAMBURATH HOUSE, MALAYAMMA P.O,NIT VIA, KOZHIKODE 673 601** - **5 ANOOP K.C AGED 30 YEARS,S/O. VASU NAIR,NAMBEETTIL, ANNASSERY, THALAKKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE 673 315** - **BY ADV. SMT.I.S.LAILA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001** - **2 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULSI HILLS,PATTOM PALACE P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004** - **3 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY JALABHAVAN,VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR** *** ADDL.R4 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001** **IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.4TH RESPONDENT IN WPC NO.34578/2017 AS PER ORDER DT.17.11.17 IN IA NO.18100/2017** **BY ADV. SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SC,PSC,SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN,GP SRI.RON BASTIAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners, who are physically handicapped candidates with locomotor disability as certified in Ext.P1 series, are aggrieved by the refusal to include them in the ranked list on the ground that they are not eligible for appointment to that post. 2. Pursuant to Ext.P3 notification, issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (“PSC” for short) on 13.06.2014 inviting online applications for appointment to the post of Operator in Kerala Water Authority, petitioners submitted applications. By Ext.P3, 11 vacancies of Operators in the scale of pay of Rs.10,470-26,870/- were notified for appointment. As petitioners fulfilled the qualifications, they submitted their applications and appeared in the OMR Test held on 24.6.2015. On 4.10.2016, the 2[nd] respondent published a probability list of candidate in which the petitioners were included in the main list. In the list of differently abled candidates, candidates with low vision alone were included. Candidates with hearing W.P.(C) No.34578/17 :4: impairment and locomotor disability/cerebral palsy were stated to be “not eligible”. When Ext.P7 rank list was published on 22.06.2017, the results of 13 candidates including that of the petitioners were withheld. On application under the Right to Information Act, the 2[nd] respondent informed the petitioners that their results were withheld, awaiting clarification from Government. It was stated that as per Government order dated 03.01.2013, the post of 'Pump Operator' was found suitable only for the low vision category among the differently abled. The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P13 order issued by the Government, which identified the post of Operators as suitable for candidates with the disability of 'low vision' alone. 3. This writ petition was filed challenging the exclusion of candidates with locomotor disability, in Ext.P13 order, for appointment as Operators, pointing out that there is no basis for the same, as they themselves had been working in the very same post based on appointments on temporary basis several times, on ## W.P.(C) No.34578/17 **==> picture [12 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** being sponsored by Employment Exchange. As Ext.P13 order restricted reservation for physically handicapped for appointment to the post of Operator under the 3[rd] respondent to the low vision category only, they submitted representations before the Chief Minister several times, requesting for inclusion of other categories of disabled hands also as suitable for the post of Operator. As those representations did not yield any results, they filed this writ petition. ## 4. Seeing that Government has not passed any orders on identification of posts subsequent to 2013, this Court passed the following order, when the writ petition came up for consideration on 02.03.2018: _Government Pleader shall file a statement as to the steps taken subsequent to Ext.P13 issued on 3.1.2013 for identifying the categories of posts for the different types of disabled hands and to state why no such identification/revision is not made so far, despite the proviso in Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as well as the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995._ ## 5. Subsequent to that the expert committee for identification of posts met and Government thereafter issued Ext.P25 order - G.O.(P) No.202018/SJD dated ## W.P.(C) No.34578/17 :6: 26.10.2018, including the categories of 'hearing impairment and locomotor disability' as suitable for appointment as Pump Operator. The petitioners have produced the same along with IA No.4 of 2018. 6. The prayer nos. 1 and 3 in the writ petition have thus become infructuous in view of Ext.P25 order. Along with IA No.4180/2018, the petitioners have produced Ext.P22 letter dated 07.02.2008 of the 2[nd] respondent issued in reply to their application under the Right to Information Act, where it was stated that after advising 8 candidates under the low vision category, altogether 31 vacancies including the vacancies earmarked for hearing impaired and for those with locomotor disability and cerebral palsy, were set apart for advice from the next rank list due to nonavailability of candidates with low vision. They have also produced the appointment chart published by the PSC with respect to advice made on 08.11.2018, according to which the number of unfilled pending turns among the differently abled -blind is 38 (previous). As against DA-D and DA-O it is stated NE (not W.P.(C) No.34578/17 **==> picture [12 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** eligible). Therefore those 31 vacancies of the previous selection year mentioned in Ext.P22 letter, which should be inclusive of the 38 pending turns, were mentioned in Ext.P26 also. Petitioners claim that those vacancies carried forward from the previous selection year are liable to be filled up by the candidates belonging to other categories. 7. Smt.Laila, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that in the light of Ext.P25 order 38 vacancies mentioned in Ext.P26 appointment chart, which remain unfilled due to non-availability of candidates in low vision categories are to be filled up by candidates having locomotor disability and hence petitioners are entitled to be advised and appointed. 8. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for PSC vehemently opposed the claim of petitioners and argued that petitioners are not entitled to any relief; persons with locomotor disability were not identified for the post when the notification or even the rank list was published. Therefore, they do not have any right to claim W.P.(C) No.34578/17 :8: appointment from the current list; there would be several candidates who could not apply for the post since it was not identified; the attempt of the petitioners is for back door entry; pointing out that Ext.P25 order was issued only during the currency of the rank list, it was argued that the rank list cannot be revised and there are no prayers sought in the writ petition based on which petitioners can be granted relief; if any relief is granted to the petitioners by this Court, that would amount to favouritism; etc. 9. On an anxious consideration of the contentions, it is necessary to have a look at the reliefs sought in this writ petition, which are as follows: _i)To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.p13 order to the extent of restricting reservation for physically handicapped category for appointment to the post of Operator under the 3[rd] respondent to Low Vision Group only;_ _ii) To declare that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Operator under the 3[rd] respondent on the basis of Ext.P7 ranked list and denial of the same on the basis of Ext.P13 order is unconstitutional;_ _iii) to call for records the details and approvals leading to Ext.P13 order;_ _iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 2[nd] respondent to issue advice for appointment to the post of Operator under the 3[rd] respondent under reservation category for physically handicapped forthwith or within such time as this Hon'ble court may_ W.P.(C) No.34578/17 :9: _deem just and proper in the interest of justice and_ _v) grant such other and further reliefs that this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case ._ 10. This writ petition was filed on 30.10.2017. Ext.P25 order was passed at a time when the rank list continues to be in force, and it was issued based on a review conducted by the experts pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. As per Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ('1995 Act' for short) it was the duty of the Government to identify posts, in the establishments, which can be reserved for the persons with disability. It was also bound to undertake a review of the list of the posts identified and to update the list every three years. When the list is thus updated based on such review, it is the duty of the PSC to give effect to the same in tune with the object and purpose of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ('2016 Act' for short). In that process it has to prepare separate lists for the categories which are newly W.P.(C) No.34578/17 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** included, from among those submitted applications. For that purpose it has to prepare the list of candidates belonging to each category of differently abled. The apportionment of the 3% vacancies are to be made in the ratio of 1:1:1 (it is 4% as per the PWD Act 2016). 11. In order to examine the main objection raised by the learned Counsel for the PSC, that other differently abled candidates were unable to apply for the post, it is necessary to have a look at Ext.P3 notification. In the notification the name of the post, number of vacancies, qualification, method of appointment, age limit etc. are specified. The mode of submitting application was “online” ; the last date of receipt of application was “16.07.2014”. Under clause 11 it was stated that sub paragraphs v, viii, ix, x, xi and xiii in paragraphs 2, 6 and 7 of the general conditions are not applicable to the post. It also provided that selection to the above post would be subject to the rules and regulations made by the PSC from time to time. Candidates were instructed to see the general conditions given in Part II for further ## W.P.(C) No.34578/17 :11: details. Therefore, there was nothing in Ext.P3 notification which prohibited differently abled candidates of any category from submitting applications for selection and appointment to the post. It did not also provide that the vacancies were reserved for any particular category of differently abled or that there was any reservation at all. Therefore, the contention that there would be other candidates who would not have applied for the post or that the fundamental rights of such candidates would be deprived of, if persons like petitioners are considered is absolutely baseless. It is equally baseless to describe the claim of the petitioners as an attempt to get back door entry or that recognition of their claim would amount to 'favouritism', as contended by Adv.P.C.Sasidharan. 12. The respondents cannot dispute the fact that petitioners submitted their applications and that they were included in the main list of the short list. If the proceedings upto their inclusion in the short list was not through back door and only those included in the short list can be included in the rank list, it is W.P.(C) No.34578/17 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** not understood how PSC can describe the claim of petitioners as one for back door entry. 13. Along with Ext.P7 rank list, PSC has published the list of candidates with the disability of 'low vision' only among the differently abled. Under the head of 'hearing impaired' and 'locomotor disability/cerebral palsy' it is stated 'not eligible.'. The reason stated in Ext.P12 letter of the 2[nd] respondent for withholding the results of petitioners was stated to be the Government Order dated 03.01.2013 stating that the post of 'Pump Operators' was identified for appointment of candidates with low vision only. Now that the other two categories are also found suitable in Ext.P25 order for appointment as Pump Operators and vacancies belonging to each of the categories of differently abled are seen carried forward to the succeeding year of selection, in the absence of candidates with low vision, those 31 vacancies mentioned in Ext.P22 letter read with Ext.P26 appointment chart are liable to be filled from the other two categories of differently abled apportioning W.P.(C) No.34578/17 :13: the same equally, or even in accordance with ratio of 1:1:1 in the light of the provisions contained in Section 36 of the 1995 Act as well as Section 34(2) of the PWD Act 2016. Under the 1995 Act, which was in force in the previous selection year, Section 36 provided as follows: _36. Vacancies not filled up to be carried forward.—Where in any recruitment year any vacancy under Section 33, cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with disability or, for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the three categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability :_ _Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person can not be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the three categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government._ By the time Ext.P7 rank list was published, PWD Act 2016 came into force and Section 34 of that Act reads as follows: _34. Reservation.— (1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:—_ _(a) blindness and low vision;_ W.P.(C) No.34578/17 :14: _(b) deaf and hard of hearing;_ _(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;_ _(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;_ _(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:_ _Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time:_ _Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section._ _(2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability: 1. Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government._ 14. Therefore PSC has to prepare separate lists for both these categories of DA-D and DA-O from among the candidates who submitted applications pursuant to Ext.P3 notification. The withheld results of petitioners and others are therefore to be released and W.P.(C) No.34578/17 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** advice and appointments are to be made from the lists for both the categories to be prepared. 15. Though no counter affidavit is on record, according to the learned Counsel for the PSC, Ext.P25 order can be implemented only in the next selection or by way of special recruitment. It was pointed out that selection of differently abled candidates under the relaxed standards have not been carried out except in the case of those with low vision as they alone were identified as suitable for the post and therefore persons like petitioners can be considered only in the next selection. In this context, it is relevant to note the judgments of the apex court in _**Government of India and Another v. Ravi Prakash Gupta and Another , (2010) 7 SCC 626, Union of India and another vs. National Federation of the Blind and Others : 2013 (10) SCC 772**_ as well as a series of judgments of this Court including _**Kerala Public Service Commission Vs. E.Dinesan** ,_ where the Division Bench of this Court, directed appointment of physically disabled candidates even from the supplementary list after the main list ## W.P.(C) No.34578/17 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** exhausted and against all the back log vacancies from 1996 onwards, repelling the contention of the PSC that a special recruitment has to be made and that apportionment can be made only from the date on which Government issued clarificatory orders in 2010. 16. In the case of Last Grade Servants in the Corporation,the PSC issued a supplementary list of disabled hands on directions from this court. 17. In the light of the stiff opposition from respondents 1 and 2, pointing out the reliefs sought in this writ petition, the next question which requires consideration is whether this Court should deny relief to the petitioners in the absence of any particular prayer in the writ petition. 18. Petitioners are differently abled candidates who were included in the short list and happened to be excluded from the ranked list only because of Ext.P13 order. Now that Ext.P25 order has been issued in modification of Ext.P13 order by which the category to which they belong also are found suitable for appointment to the post. It will be unjust to deny W.P.(C) No.34578/17 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** appropriate consequential relief to the petitioners who were denied inclusion in the rank list merely because of an order which has already undergone modification. In this context it is necessary to have a look at the PWD Act 2016, which is enacted for the empowerment of differently abled, to protect them from discrimination etc. India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The convention which was adopted by the UN on 13.12.2006, was ratified by India on 01.10.2007. The PWD Act, 2016 is enacted in order to give effect to the UN convention which lays down the following principles for empowerment of persons with disabilities,— - _(a) respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons;_ - _(b) non-discrimination;_ - _(c) full and effective participation and inclusion in society;_ - _(d) respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;_ - _(e) equality of opportunity;_ - _(f) accessibility;_ - _(g) equality between men and women;_ - _(h) respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities;_ W.P.(C) No.34578/17 :18: 19. The petitioners in this case are seeking appointment against the vacancies reserved for physically disabled hands under Section 34 of the PWD Act 2016, for which they have undergone the process of selection by the PSC. I have found that their results were withheld, in other words their names were not included in the rank list only because of Ext.P13 order which has been modified and that ground no longer exists after the issuance of Ext.P25 order. They will get appointment only if the PSC advises them after including them and similarly situated candidates who appeared for the test, pursuant to Ext.P3 notification, in a separate rank list. It is settled law that power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is to advance justice and to see that nobody is subjected to injustice by violating the law. This Court is convinced that the petitioners are put to injustice and that the same can be undone if the respondent PSC acts in tune with the statutory provisions. It is also pertinent to note that the W.P.(C) No.34578/17 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** respondents in these cases are also bound to see that the barriers on the way of the differently abled are removed in tune with the intent and purpose of the Act. Till the PWD Act 2016 was brought into force the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, (the 1995 Act) was in force. Both the Acts provided for 3%/4% reservation to differently abled candidates. There are 31/38 vacancies available for the differently abled as seen from Exts.P22 and 26 which are liable to be filled up from among other categories of differently abled in the absence of candidates with Low Vision. There shall be a direction to the respondent PSC to fill up these 31 vacancies which could not be filled up due to non-availability of candidates in low vision categories, from among the candidates having hearing impairment and locomotor disability, in accordance with the provisions contained in section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, after publishing separate lists of such candidates. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of W.P.(C) No.34578/17 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** receipt of a copy of the judgment. **Sd/-** **P.V.ASHA** **JUDGE** rkc W.P.(C) No.34578/17 :21: ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**|**THE**<br>**DISABILITY**| |---|---|---| ||**CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF 1ST**|| ||**PETITIONER**|| |**EXHIBIT P1(A)**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**|**THE**<br>**DISABILITY**| ||**CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF 2ND**|| ||**PETITIONER**|| |**EXHIBIT P1(B)**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**|**THE**<br>**DISABILITY**| ||**CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF 3RD**|| ||**PETITIONER**|| |**EXHIBIT P1(C)**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**|**THE**<br>**DISABILITY**| ||**CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF 4TH**|| ||**PETITIONER**|| |**EXHIBIT P1(D)**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**|**THE**<br>**DISABILITY**| ||**CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF 5TH**|| ||**PETITIONER**|| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE **|**NATIONAL TRADE**| ||**CERTIFICATE AND TRADE**|**TEST MARKS ISSUED**| ||**TO THE 1ST PETITIONER**|| |**EXHIBIT P2(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE **|**NATIONAL TRADE**| ||**CERTIFICATE AND TRADE**|**TEST MARKS ISSUED**| ||**TO THE 3RD PETITIONER**|| |**EXHIBIT P2(B)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE **|**NATIONAL TRADE**| ||**CERTIFICATE AND TRADE**|**TEST MARKS ISSUED**| ||**TO THE 4TH PETITIONER**|| |**EXHIBIT P2(C)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE **|**NATIONAL TRADE**| ||**CERTIFICATE AND TRADE**|**TEST MARKS ISSUED**| ||**TO THE 5TH PETITIONER**|| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED**|| ||**13/06/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**|| W.P.(C) No.34578/17 :22: **EXHIBIT P4** **TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKETS ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P4(A)** **TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKETS ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P4(B)** - **TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKETS ISSUED TO 4TH PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKETS ISSUED TO 5TH PETITIONEER** **EXHIBIT P5** **TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE (ONE TIME REGISTRATION) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P5(A)** **EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE(ONE TIME REGISTRATION) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE(ONE TIME REGISTRATION) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIN LIST DATED 04/10/2016 PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RANKED LIST BROUGHT INTO FORCE WEF 22.6.17** **EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(P) NO.46/2008/SWD DT.19.7.08** **EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DT.6.7.17 BEFORE THE HON.CHIEF MINSTER OF KERALA** **EXT.P10** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION** :23: W.P.(C) No.34578/17 **SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DT.12.7.17 BEFORE THE HON.MINISTER FOR SOCIAL WELFARE** - **EXT.P11** **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.2.8.17 FROM THE CHIEF MINISTER'S OFFICE** - **EXT.P12** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DT.7.8.17 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER** - **EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GO(P) NO.01/13/SJD, DT.3.1.13** - **EXT.P14** - **TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.4.1.18 SUBMITTED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KERALA PSC** - **EXT.P15 TURE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DT.25.5.09 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **EXT.P16** - **TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DT.7.7.10 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE ASST. ENGINEER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DT.22.8.10 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE ASST. ENGINEER OF TEH 3RD RESPONDENT** - **EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DT.12.8.13 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY TEH ASST. ENGINEER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **EXT.P19 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DT.18.4.15 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE ASST. ENGINEER OF THE 3R RESPONDENT** - **EXT.P20** **TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE** W.P.(C) No.34578/17 :24: ||**DT,10.2.09 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT**| |---|---| ||**BY THE ASST. ENGINEER OF THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**EXT.P21**|**TRUE COPY OF THE QUERY RAISED BY ME ON**| ||**11.1.18 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT**| |**EXT.P22**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED**| ||**BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION**| ||**OFFICER,**<br>**KERALA**<br>**PUBLIC**<br>**SERVICE**| ||**COMMISSION, UNDER LETTER DT.7.2.18**| |**EXT.P23**|**TRUE COPY OF ONE SUCH APPOINTMENT**| ||**LETTER DT.9.1.18 ISSUED BY TEH**| ||**EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER**| ||**AUTHORITY, PH DIVISION, KOLLAM**| |**EXT.P24**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER HAVING**| ||**NO251/D/17/SJD DT.4.4.18 BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER**| |**EXT.P25**|**TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.20/2018/SJD**| ||**DT.26.11.18**<br>**ISSUED**<br>**BY**<br>**THE**<br>**4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**EXT.P26**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**<br>**THE**<br>**APPOINTMENT**| ||**CHART/PENDING TURNS PUBLISHED BY THE**| ||**2ND RESPONDENT**|