Suresh Kumar N v State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 24553 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** SURESH KUMAR N AGED 56 YEARS S/O N P NATARAJAN, JAYAMANDIR, UNNITHAN LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010. BY ADVS.P.NANDAKUMAR AMRUTHA SANJEEV VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR SHEMA ELIZABETH SCARIA ## **RESPONDENTS:** |1|STATE OF KERALA| |---|---| ||REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF| ||KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.| |2|PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT| ||LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (IB) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT| ||SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.| |3|SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR REAL ESTATE| ||APPELLATE TRIBUNAL| ||REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, HOUSING (PS)| ||DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.| |4|M P MATHEWS| ||MEMBER, KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,| ||PLAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003., RESIDING AT| ||MODISSERIL HOUSE, 2-MAVELI NAGAR, KOCHI-682033.| ||BY ADVS.T.B.HOOD, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER| ||K.PAUL KURIAKOSE| ||ELDO KURIAKOSE| ||K.A.ANISH| ||T.A.RAFEEK| ||K.HABEEBULLA| ||JOY K.J.| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** **2** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------W.P.(C).No.24553 of 2021 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of March, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner was a candidate who had applied to the post of Member in Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority. As per the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (for short, the Act) every State shall establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for regulation and promotion of the real estate sector and to establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal. As per Ext.P1 notification, the Government appointed one Mr. P.H. Kurian as Chairman and two other persons as whole time members of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority. One Mr. Mathew Francis, who was selected as member, had not turned up and joined. Hence a separate notification was issued by the Government as evident by Ext.P2, inviting applications from individual/State or Central Government employees to the post of member. Based on Ext.P2 notification, 15 persons submitted **3** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** applications. Two of the applications were rejected at the preliminary stage itself. Thereafter a Selection Committee was constituted as required under Section 22 of the Act. The Selection Committee conducted an interview and as evident by Ext.P9. In the interview, the petitioner in this writ petition obtained 20 marks and the 4[th] respondent obtained 18.5 marks. Based on Ext.P9, the Selection Committee forwarded the recommendation as evident by Ext.P10. It is stated in Ext.P10 that based on the interview, the names of two persons are recommended for consideration of appointment. Ext.P10 is the proceedings of the Committee for selection of member of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Ext.P11 is the note for Council of Ministers. In the point for decision in Ext.P11, it is stated that ‘whether a candidate may be selected from the panel, recommended by the Selection Committee in the order of merit as per Rule 20(4), (5) and (6) of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018’ for being appointed as member of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Based on Ext.P11, P12 decision was taken by the Council of Ministers by which the 4[th] respondent was appointed. Consequently Ext.P8 notification was issued by **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** **4** which the 4[th] respondent was appointed as member. Aggrieved by Ext.P8, this writ petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader and also the learned counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent. 3. The learned counsel reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The learned counsel submitted that as evident by Ext.P9, the petitioner is Rank No.1. The learned counsel takes me through Ext.P10 in which it is clearly stated that the petitioner and the 4[th] respondent are selected for recommendation to the Government in the order of merit for consideration of appointment to the said post. The learned counsel also takes me through the note for Council of Ministers which is produced as Ext.P11, in which it is stated that when the file was submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for orders on selection of one person from the above panel, the Hon’ble Chief Minister directed to prepare a list comprising the qualification of all the 13 applicants who attended the interview and the marks obtained by them in the interview. The learned counsel submitted that when the Selection Committee recommended two persons, the Hon’ble **5** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** Chief Minister has no authority to direct to produce the list comprising the qualification of all the 13 candidates who participated in the interview. The short point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the 4[th] respondent are recommended by the Selection Committee. Admittedly the petitioner obtained more marks than the 4[th] respondent. When the Government is selecting the 4[th] respondent, a reason is necessary for excluding the petitioner who obtained more marks. 4. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that a reading of the Rules will show that the duty of the Selection Committee is only to recommend the names of two persons and there is nothing in the Rules to show that it should be in the order of merit. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that in Ext.P10, which is the recommendation of the Committee for selection of members of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority to the Chief Secretary, it is only stated that “based on the interview, the names of two persons are recommended for consideration for appointment”. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there is nothing in Ext.P10 to show that it is based on the **6** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** order of merit. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that in Ext.P11, the points for decision only says that “…….a candidate may be selected from the panel....”. Therefore the learned Government Pleader submitted that there is nothing wrong in selecting the 4[th] respondent as a member from the panel submitted by the Selection Committee. The learned Government Pleader also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in **State of Kerala v. Reghu Varma [2009 (3) KLT 634]** . 5. The learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent also relied on the judgment of **Reghu Varma’s case** (supra). The learned counsel submitted that the 4[th] respondent is more meritorious than the petitioner and the learned counsel takes me through several documents to show the qualification of the 4[th] respondent. The learned counsel also takes me through Ext.R4(r) to show that in the earlier selection proceedings 4 names were supplied in which Serial Nos.3 and 4 were selected. The learned counsel further submitted that there is nothing to interfere with the selection of the 4[th] respondent. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. The relevant provision which **7** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** deals with the manner of selection of Chairperson and member of the authority is Rule 20 of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018(for short “Rules”). It will be better to extract Rule 20: “Manner of selection of Chairperson and Members of the Authority. (1) As and when vacancies of Chairperson or a Member in the regulatory authority exist or arise, or are likely to arise, the Government may make a reference to the Selection Committee in respect of the vacancies to be filled, as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. (2) The Selection Committee may, for the purpose of selection of the Chairperson or a Member of the authority, follow such procedure as deemed fit to suggest a panel of names possessing the requisite qualification and experience and suitable for being considered for appointment as Chairperson or Member of the Regulatory Authority from the panel of names suggested by a Search Committee. (3) A Search Committee may be constituted by the selection committee to suggest a panel of names possessing the requisite qualification and experience and suitable for being considered for appointment as Chairperson or Member of the Authority. (4) The Selection Committee shall select two persons for each vacancy and recommend the same to the Government. **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** **8** (5) The Selection Committee shall make its recommendation to the Government of Kerala within a period of thirty days from the date of reference made under sub-rule (3). (6) The Government shall within thirty days from the date of the recommendation by the Selection Committee, appoint one of the two persons recommended by the Selection Committee for the vacancy of the Chairperson or Member, as the case may be.” 7. Rule 20(4) says that the Selection Committee shall select two persons for each vacancy and recommend the same to the Government. Rule 20(6) says that the Government shall, within thirty days from the date of the recommendation by the Selection Committee, appoint one of the two persons recommended by the Selection Committee for the vacancy of the Chairperson or Member, as the case may be. Rule 20(2) says that the Selection Committee may, for the purpose of selection of the Chairperson or a Member of the authority, follow such procedure as deemed fit to suggest a panel of names possessing the requisite qualification and experience and suitable for being considered for appointment as Chairperson or Member of the Regulatory Authority from the panel of names suggested by the Search Committee. So it is **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** **9** clear that the duty of the Selection Committee is to suggest a panel possessing the requisite qualification and experience and suitable for being considered for appointment as Chairperson or Member. Inter se merit is not a criteria for selection as per Rule 20. Moreover Rule 20(6) clearly says that the Government can appoint one of the two persons recommended by the Selection Committee for the vacancy of the Chairperson or Member, as the case may be. In Rule 20(6) also, there is nothing to show that inter se merit of the candidates mentioned in the panel suggested by the Selection Committee should be considered for appointment. Here is a case where the Government appointed the 4[th] respondent. It is true that there is no reason mentioned by the Government for appointing the 4[th] respondent. But a reading of Rule 20 will show that no such reason is need to be mentioned by the Government for appointing a person from the panel submitted by the Selection Committee. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in **R.S.Mittal v. Union of India [1995 Supp (2) SCC 230]** . The learned counsel takes me through paragraphs 6 and 12, which are extracted hereunder: **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** **10** “6. Assuming that there was only one vacancy as claimed by the Central Government, there was gross delay on the part of the Central Government in initiating action to fill the same. The vacancy became available on August 14, 1988 and, according to the chart placed on record by the Central Government, the action was initiated on February 28, 1989. We fail to understand what Government meant by the expression 'Initiating action'. The character and antecedents verification, if any, should have been got done as soon as the recommendation of the Selection Board was received. No material has been placed on record and none was brought to our notice during the course of arguments to show as to why the Central Government could not initiate action as soon as the vacancy was made available. Needless to say that the recommendation of the Selection Board headed by a sitting Judge of this Court was gathering dust in records of the concerned Ministry since January 25, 1988. We take serious view of the matter and we direct that any recommendation of a Selection Board which is headed by a sitting Judge of this Court must be given prompt and immediate attention. Once there is a recommendation by such a Selection Board, nothing should intervene between the recommendation and the consideration by the appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC). The Minister/Secretary in the Administrative Department is under a legal obligation and is duty bound to process the recommendation of the Selection Board **11** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** by giving it a top priority and place the same before the ACC within reasonable time. In the present case though the action was stated to be initiated on February 28, 1989 the reference to the AC was made on May 1, 1989. We direct that the recommendations of the Selection 421 Board headed by a sitting Judge of this Court must be placed before the ACC expeditiously and preferably within two months from the date of recommendation. 12. It is no doubt correct that a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected. He has a right to be considered for appointment. But at the same time, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. When a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. In the present case, there has been a mere inaction on the part of the Government. No reason whatsoever, not to talk of a justifiable reason, was given as to why the appointments were not offered to the candidates expeditiously and in accordance with law. The appointment should have been offered to Mr. Murgod within a reasonable time of availability of the vacancy and thereafter to the next candidate. The Central Government's approach in this case was **12** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** wholly unjustified.” 8. The facts in that case is that even though a panel was submitted, nobody was appointed. In such situation the Apex Court observed like this. The above decision is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Here is a case where a panel is submitted by the Selection Committee and the Government appointed one among them. In such situation, for selecting one among the panel submitted by the committee, the government need not give any reason. 9. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in **Chandramohan Nair S. v. George Joseph and Others [2010 (4) KHC 234]** , paragraph 16 of which is extracted hereunder: “16. An analysis of these provisions shows that appointment of judicial and other members is required to be made by the State Government on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. If the Chairman and / or the members of the Selection Committee do not agree on the candidature of any particular person, then opinion of the majority would constitute recommendation of the Selection Committee. Though, the State Government is not bound to accept the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, if it does not want to accept **13** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** the recommendations, then reasons for doing so have to be recorded. The State Government cannot arbitrarily ignore or reject the recommendations of the Selection Committee. If the appointment made by the State Government is subjected to judicial scrutiny, then it is duty bound to produce the relevant records including recommendation of the Selection Committee before the Court to show that there were valid reasons for not accepting the recommendation.” 10. The Apex Court only observed that the State Government is not bound to accept the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. But, if it does not want to accept the recommendation, then reason for doing so have to be recorded. Here is a case where the Selection Committee submitted two persons’ name and recommended for selection. State Government Selected one among them. In such circumstances, according to me, **Chandramohan Nair’s case** (Supra) is also not applicable to the facts of this case. But, the Division Bench of this Court in **State of Kerala** V. **Reghu Varma’s case** (2009(3)KLT634) considered a similar situation. It will be better to extract paragraph 1 of that judgment: “ The issue raised in these writ appeals pertains to the method of selection and appointment of the **14** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appointment is in respect of two districts, Kottayam and Wayanad. The question is whether the Government, which is the appointing authority, is bound to make appointments as per the selection made by the Selection Committee. The undisputed factual position is that the Selection Committee conducted interview and on the basis of merit, prepared a select list. The Government, ignoring the order of merit, appointed two Presidents, of course, from the panel prepared by the Selection Committee. The learned single Judge has taken the view that once the Selection Committee having assessed the merit of the qualified candidates and having recommended the candidates in the order of merit, without assigning any reason, the Government could not have ignored the select list prepared on the basis of merit as assessed by the Selection Committee and hence the appeals by the State.” 11. Thereafter the Division Bench considered the matter in detail in paragraph 7. Relevant portion of paragraph 7 is extracted hereunder: “Though the Act and the Rules have used the expression "Selection Committee", and though in common parlance the Selection Committee is expected to prepare a select list on assessment of **15** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** merit of each candidate, under the Consumer Protection Act and its Rules in the State, the duty cast on the Selection Committee is only to recommend a panel, Under R.7(3), the Committee is given freedom to adopt any method as the Committee feels fit for finalising the panel. On finalising the panel, under the Rules the Selection Committee forwards ".... the list of qualified candidates so finalised" to the Government for consideration for appointment. In other words, the duty cast on the Selection Committee under the Act and the Rules is, by whatever method they deem fit, to assess whether the candidates placed before them by the Government for finalising the panel are duly qualified, in the sense whether they are suitable and qualified to hold the position of either President or Member, and nothing more or nothing less. Under the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, the select list is prepared based on merit and ability and the incumbents are ranked on the basis of such assessment made by the Selection Committee, whereas under the Scheme of the Consumer Protection Act and the State Rules the Selection Committee has no such power. The power conferred on them is only to finalise a panel of candidates after subjecting the candidates to whatever test they may deem fit for the prupose of assessing their merit, suitability etc. for holding the post. The Committee is not expected to or called upon to prepare a select list of candidates in the order of merit and suitability. **16** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** Thus all the candidates included in the list of qualified candidates finalised by the Selection Committee are duly recommended by the Selection Committee. Once the Selection Committee recommends a list of qualified candidates, the appointing authority is free to appoint any candidate recommended by the Selection Committee. No doubt unless recommended by the Selection Committee, the appointing authority cannot make any appointment. In other words, the appointing authority, namely the Government, cannot appoint the candidate outside the list of qualified candidates furnished by the Selection Committee and only to that extent there is a fetter or restriction on the power and method of appointment of the President and Members of the various Forums under the Consumer Protection Act and its State Rules, on the Government.” ## 12. It will be beneficial to extract the relevant portion of paragraph 8 of the above decision also: “The factual situation in the instant case is different. No doubt the appointing authority, namely, the Government of Kerala is entitled to appoint a candidate either as President or Member of the Forum only on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. But as already noted above, all the candidates included in the list of qualified candidates finalised by the Selection Committee are duly recommended. For making the appointment from **17** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** among the list of candidates recommended, the appointing authority is not bound to follow the order indicated by the Selection Committee since the Selection Committee is not vested with such a power. That apart, being the subjective choice of the appointing authority, no reasons need be given also.” 13. From the above, it is clear that the Government can appoint any one of the persons from the panel. In this case, as I observed earlier, two persons’ names were recommended by the Selection Committee and the Government selected the 4[th] respondent. It is true that the 4[th] respondent is second in rank. But the Government can select any one of them. In such circumstances, there is nothing to interfere by this Court by invoking the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- JV **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** **18** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24553/2021** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|PETITIONER EXHIBITS| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF G.O(P) NO.66/2019/LSGD| ||DATED 05.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED| ||16.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.20319| ||OF 2019 DATED 30.01.2020.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED| ||01.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF CURRICULUM VITAE OF THE| ||PETITIONER ALONG WITH COPIES OF| ||CERTIFICATES.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF VERIFICATION REPORT OF| ||THE PETITIONER DATED 29.02.2020 AS| ||RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT.| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.12.2020| ||ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.50/2021/LSGD| ||DATED 21.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF MARK SHEET OF THE| ||INTERVIEW CONDUCTED ON 30.12.2020 FOR| ||THE POST OF MEMBER, RERA.| |Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF RECOMMENDATION OF THE| ||SELECTION COMMITTEE ALONG WITH THE| ||PROCEEDINGS.| |Exhibit P11|TRUE COPY OF NOTE FOR COUNCIL OF| ||MINISTERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST| ||OF MEMBER, RERA.| |Exhibit P12|TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF CABINET DATED| ||15.09.2021.| |Exhibit P-4(A)|PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE| ||AWARDING THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF| ||ENGINEERING (CIVIL) TO ME, PLACING ME| ||IN FIRST CLASS, BY THE SOUTH GUJARAT| ||UNIVERSITY.| |Exhibit P4(B)|PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF AUTHORISATION| ||DATED 15.05.1996 ISSUED BY THE| ||INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS (INDIA)| **19** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** |Exhibit P4(C)|PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE| |---|---| ||AWARDING THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF| ||LAWS TO ME. BY THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY| ||OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,| |Exhibit P4(D)|PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIICATE| ||OF ENROLMENT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT| ||ISSUED BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA,| |Exhibit P4(E)|PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF THE 4TH| ||RESPONDENT APPLICATION FOR BEING| ||CONSIDERED,TO THE POST OF THE MEMBER| ||IN KERALA REAL ESTATE| ||REGULATORYAUTHORITY AS LETTER DATED| ||28.01.2020. ENCLOSING MY CURRICULUM| ||VITAE.| |Exhibit P4(F)|PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE| ||OF SERVICE DATED 29.07.2017. ISSUED BY| ||M/S ANSAL BUILDWELL LIMITED.| |Exhibit P4(G)|PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE| ||DATED 27.03.2000 ISSUD BY| ||M/S.A.V.THOMAS &COMPANY,| |Exhibit P4(H)|PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF THE CERIFICATE| ||DATED 29.06.1982 BEARING NO. P/SC/-7-| ||9-8/811 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT| ||BY THE PRINCIPAL OF SARDAR VALLABHAI| ||REGIONAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING &| ||TECHNOLOGY,SURAT.| |Exhibit P4(I)|PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE| ||DATED 29.06.1982 BEARING NO. C/JCC/812| ||ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE| ||PRINCIPAL OF SARDAR VALLABHAI REGIONAL| ||COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY.| ||SURAT,| |Exhibit P4(J)|PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE| ||DATED 18.04.1981 ISSUED BY THE| ||REGISTRAR SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY| ||CERTIFYING THAT THE 4TH RESPONDENT WAS| ||A MEMBER OF THE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS| ||COUNCIL DURING THE YEAR 1980-81| |Exhibit P4(K)|PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF THE BHATAR| ||MANJURA GROUP GRAM PANCHAYAT ISSUED A| ||CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION DATED| ||07.08.1981 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P4(I)|PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION| ||NO. D2-5546/2017 DATED 11.12.2018| |Exhibit P4(m)|PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING| ||NO.KBC/SPN/1685/2021 ISSUED BY THE BAR| **20** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** COUNCIL OF KERALA INFORMING THE 4TH RESPONDENT THAT MY VOLUNTARILY SUSPENSION OF PRACTICE HAS BEEN RECORDED WITH EFFECT FROM 23.09.2021 Exhibit P4(N) PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF THE COMPANY MASTER DATA OBTAINED FROM THE PORTAL OF THE MINISTRY OF COMPANY AFFAIRS PERTAINING TO SARFINITY CONSULTING PVT.LTD IN WHICH THE PETITIONER CLAIMS TO BE THE PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT (DIRECTOR) FORA PERIOD OF ABOUT 15 YEARS. - Exhibit P4(O) PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF INDIPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT DATED 03.12.2020 PERTAINING TO M/S. SRFINITY CONSULTING PVT.LTD. - Exhibit P4(P) PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF COMPANY MASTER DATA OBTAINED FROM THE PORTAL OF THE MINISTRY OF COMPANY AFFAIRS PERTAINING TO M/S PAMCO SOLUTION PVT.LTD.IN WHICH THE PETITIONER CLAIMS TO BE THE PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT (DIRECTOR) SINCE 01.06.2016. Exhibit P4(Q) PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT PERTAINING TO M/S PAMCO SOLUTION PVT.LTD. Exhibit P4(R) PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING FOR THE SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING FOR THE SELECTION OF RERA HELD ON 30.03.2019 Respondents Exts Ext R4(a): copy of the certificate awarding the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) to me, placing me in first class, by the South Gujarat University Ext R4(b)- copy of authorisation dated 15.5.1996 issued by the Institution of Engineering (India) Ext R4(c)- copy of the certificate awarding the Degree of **21** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** Bachelor of Laws to me, by the Cochin University of Science and Technology. Ext R4(d)- copy of certificate of Enrolment of R4 issued by the Bar Council of Kerala. Ext R4(e)- copy of r4 application for being considered to the post of the Member in Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority as letter dtd 28.1.2020 enclosing my Curriculum Vitae Ext R4(f) copy of the certificate of service dtd. 28.7.2017 issued by M/s.Ansal Buildwell Ltd. Ext R4(g) Copy of the certificate dtd 27.3.2000 issued by M/s.A.V.Thomas & Company Ext R4(h)- copy of certificate dtd 29.6.1982 bearing No.P/SC/79-8-/811 issued to r4 by Prl. Of Sardar Vallabhai Regional College of Engineering & Technology, Surat. Ext R4(i)- copy of certificate dtd.29.6.1982 bearing No.C/JCC/812 issued to R4 by Prl. of Sardar Vallabhai Regional College of Engineering & Technology, Surat. Ext R4(j)-copy of certificate dtd 18.4.1981 issued by the Registrar, South Gujarat University certifying that R4 was a Member of the University Students' Council during the year 1980-81 **22** ## **W.P.(C).No.24553/2021** Ext R4(k)- copy of the Bhatar Majura Group Gram Panchayat issued a certificate of appreciation dtd 7.8.1981 to R4. Ext R4(l)- copy of Notification No.D2-5546/2017 dtd 11.12.2018. Ext R4(m)- copy of letter bearing No.KBC/SPN1685/2021 dtd. 29.9.2021 issued by the Bar Council of Kerala informing R4 that my volunarily suspension of practice has been recorded w.e.f 23.9.2021 Ext R4(n)-copy of the company master data obtrained from portal of Ministry of Company Affairs pertaining to sarfinity Consulting Pvt.Ltd in which the petitioner claims to be the Principal Consultant(Director) for a period of about 15 years. ExtR4(o)- copy of independent Auditor's Report dtd 3.12.2020 pertaining to M/s.Sarfinity Consulting Pvt.Ltd. Ext R4(p)- copy of company master data obtained from the portal of the Ministry of Company Affairs pertaining to M/s.Pamco Solution Pvt.Ltd. In which the petitioner claims to be the Principal Consultant (Director) since 1.6.2016. Ext R4(q)- copy of independent Auditor's Report pertaining to M/s.Pamco Solution Pvt. Ltd. Ext R4(r)- copy of the Minutes of the Selection Committee Meeting for the selection of RERA held on 30.3.2019