Suresh T. Harshan & others v. The Kerala State Transport Department & The Director, Kerala State Water Transport Department

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022/18TH PHALGUNA, 1943 OP(KAT) NO. 307 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE FINAL ORDER IN OA.NO.1534/2021 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **PETITIONERS:** - **1 SURESH T.HARSHAN, AGED 43, S/O.T.M.HARSHAN, WORKING AS BOAT LASCARS AT ALAPPUZHA DEPOT, RESIDING AT THURUTHEAL HOUSE, NEHRU TROPHY WARD, AVALLOOKUNNU P.O., ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-688 006.** - **2 MIDHULESH.N.C., AGED 33, S/O.CHANDRAN.N.D., RESIDING AT NANDHIKATTVELY, MANNANCHERRY P.O., MANNANCHERRY VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA THALUK, ALAPUZHA-688 538, NOW WORKING AS BOAT LASCARS AT PULINKUNNU BOAT DEPOT.** - **3 MONY KUTTAN.C.K., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.K.S.CHANDRAN, WORKING AS BOAT LASCAR AT NEDUMUDI DEPOT, KAYIPPURAM HOUSE, NORTH ARYAD P.O., KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-688 538.** - **4 JAYARAJAN.N.J, AGED 36, S/O.JANARDHANAN, WORKING AS BOAT LASCAR AT ALAPPUZHA DEPOT, RESIDING AT NIKARTHIL COLONY, TV PURAM P.O., VAIKOM, TV PURAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686 606.** - **5 GANAPRIYAN.T.P., AGED 39, S/O.T.P.PANKAJAKSHAN, WORKING AS BOAT LASCAR AT PANAVALLY DEPOT, RESIDING AT THEKKEDATHU HOUSE, THRICHATTUKULAM P.O., PANAVALLY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA THALUK, ALAPPUZHA-688 526.** O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..2.. - **6 SUDHESH.V.S., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN.V.S., WORKING AS BOAT LASCAR AT PANAVALLY DEPOT, RESIDING AT VALAYAMPARAMBIL, POLLASSERY, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 141.** - **7 MUHAMMED ASLAM, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA, WORKING AS BOAT LASCAR AT NEDUMUDI DEPOT, MARANGATTU HOUSE, NADAVATH NAGAR P.O., CHERTHALA, AROOKUTTY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-688 526.** - **8 AJEESH.V.P., AGED 39, S/O.V.K.PARTHAN, WORKING AS BOAT LASCAR AT KAVALAM DEPOT, RESIDING AT VALLAPURACKAL HOUSE, MUHAMMA P.O., THANNERMUKKAM SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-688 525.** - **9 RAGESH.K., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.R.KRISHNAKURUP, WORKING AS BOAT LASCAR AT PULINCKUNNU DEPOT, RESIDING AT KIURUPPASSERY HOUSE, CHATYHURTHIAKARY P.O., PULINCUNNU, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-688 502.** ## **BY ADVS.M/S.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI & SABINA JAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE KERALA STATE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, HEAD OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-688 011.** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS OP(KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..3.. ## ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 _(arising out of the impugned final order dated 10.8.2021 in O.A.No. 1534/2021 on the file of the KAT, Thiruvananthapuram Bench)_ --------------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of March, 2022 ## J U D G M E N T ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. Ext.P-2 final order rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, in the instant Original Application O.A.No.1534/2021 filed at the behest of the petitioners herein/original applicants in the O.A. before the Tribunal, is under challenge in this Original Petition, wherein the respondents herein are the respondents in the above O.A. 2. The prayers in Ext.P-1 Original Application O.A.No.1534/2021 are as follows: “ _i. Direction to the 2[nd] respondent to prepare a seniority list of boat lascars in the Kerala State Water Transport department and promote the eligible persons to the post of boat masters. ii. To issue appropriate direction and orders directing the 2[nd] respondent to consider the representations filed by the applicants. iii. To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to grant.”_ O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..4.. 3. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P-2 final order without getting into the merits of the controversy, but has only directed that the claims of the petitioners herein for promotion as made out in Anxs.3 & 4 representations have been duly considered and orders passed thereon by the 2[nd] respondent Director of Kerala State Water Transport Department. 4. The prayers in the instant Original Petition (KAT) are as follows: “ _i. Direct the respondents to fill up the vacancies of Boat Masters forthwith in accordance with the seniority of the eligible lascars available in the department. ii. Set aside Ext.P3 and direct the 2[nd] respondent to take up the exercise of filling up of the vacancies of Boat Masters from among the eligible boat lascars who satisfied the qualification and criterion prescribed in the special rules in existence. iii. Issue such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice. And iv. Award costs.”_ 5. Heard Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the O.P./original applicants in the O.A. and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..5.. Pleader appearing for the respondents in the O.P./respondents in the O.A. 6. As indicated hereinabove, the complaint projected by the petitioners in this O.P. is that the Tribunal should have examined the merits of the grievances of the petitioners regarding their non consideration of claims for promotion from the present category of 'Lascars' to the next category of 'Boat Masters', instead of merely directing the 2[nd] respondent to consider and pass orders on Anxs.3 & 4 representations, etc. 7. After hearing both sides and after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are holding the post of Lascar, which is a lower category post, and having regard to the nature of their grievances, we feel that the merits of the claims will have to be adjudicated in this Original Petition. The applicants are Lascars in the Kerala State Water Transport Department and according to them, they are eligible to be considered for promotion to the next higher category, namely, Boat Masters. Further that, the service conditions of incumbents in the category of Lascars, O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..6.. Boat Masters, etc in the Kerala State Water Transport Department are regulated by Ext.P-4 Special Rules published in Kerala Gazette dated 18.8.1975 as per SRO.No.717/75 and G.O.(P) No. 151/75/PW dated 18.8.1975. Boat Masters come in Category 3 of the various posts included in Ext.P-4 Special Rules. The method of appointment to post of Boat Masters is by direct recruitment and by promotion from the feeder category of Lascars. 8. Further, the Note appended thereto prescribes that the ratio between direct recruitment and promotion in the abovesaid category of Boat Masters shall be 4:1, ie, 80% to 20%. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the 2[nd] respondent Director of the Kerala State Water Transport Department has filed statement dated February, 2022, in this case. It is averred in para 10 of said statement filed by the 2[nd] respondent that eligibility for appointment to the post of Boat Masters under the existing rules is “a pass in SSLC or equivalent and Boat Master license as per the Kerala Inland Vessel Rules, 2010”. Further, it is admitted therein that all employees including the applicants herein who have O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..7.. completed the said qualification and probation in the feeder category are eligible for promotion to the post of Boat Masters. It is stated in para 3 of the said statement that the authorized cadre strength/sanctioned strength in the post of Boat Masters is 160, and further that the cadre strength/sanctioned strength in the feeder category of Lascars (which post is held by the applicants) is 325. Further, it is stated that out of the cadre strength of 160 posts, as of now, 135 incumbents are in position, out of which 114 incumbents have been appointed by the regular method of direct recruitment and 21 persons are holding the post of Boat Masters on the basis of promotion. Further, it is asserted in para 5 of said statement that although the cadre strength of post of Boat Masters is 160, the Department is having the considered opinion that only 153 posts out of the said 160 posts alone need to be filled up, as that could be more than sufficient to manage the number of boats actually in operation in the department. 9. Interestingly, it is averred in para 2 of said statement that the ratio of 4:1 for effecting appointment to the post of Boat O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..8.. Masters by the method of direct recruitment and promotion, can be worked out only on the basis of percentage of the arising vacancy and not on the basis of percentage of cadre strength of the employees. Presumably on this basis, it is further contended in para 5 of said statement that 21 vacancies were available in the post of Boat Masters in the year 2020, and out of which 5 vacancies alone have to be earmarked for promotion, and that 4 persons were already promoted as Boat Masters from the feeder category of Lascars and one more vacancy now exists. Further that, 17 vacancies are to be filled up through direct recruitment and the rank list prepared by the PSC for the post of Boat Masters has expired on 5.2.2019, and so the direct recruitment vacancies cannot be filled up now, etc. 10. Per contra, the contentions raised by Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the O.P. is that the above legal contention raised by the 2[nd] respondent Director, that the ratio 4:1 prescribed in Ext.P-4 Special Rules is to be worked out on the basis of arising vacancy and not on the basis of percentage of cadre strength, is absolutely O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..9.. untenable and unsustainable in law. In that regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would rely on various decisions of the Apex Court which has dealt with the legal position regarding the applicability of Note (3) to Rule 5 of Part II Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 _{hereinafter referred to as “KS & SSR Part II”}_ and its impact on the Special Rules. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the pleadings and materials on record. The main issue to be decided in this case is as to whether the ratio of 4:1 for direct recruitment and promotion to the post of Boat Masters is to be worked out on the basis of arising vacancies as contended by the respondents in the O.P. or to be worked out on the basis of percentage of cadre strength as strongly argued by Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the O.P. 12. There is no dispute that Ext.P-4 Special Rules have been promulgated statutorily as an SRO.No.717/75 on 18.8.1975, whereas the provisions contained in Rule 5 of KS & SSR Part II O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..10.. more particularly, Note (3) has been amended as per G.O.(P) No.57/92/P & ARD dated 5.12.1992 published as SRO. No.194/193 dated 2.9.1993. Rule 5 of KS & SSR Part II including Notes (1) to (3) thereof, as it stands after the amendment reads as follows: _“_ _**5. Method of recruitment.-** Where the normal method of recruitment to any service, class or category is neither solely by direct recruitment or solely by transfer but is both by direct recruitment and by transfer,-_ _(a) the proportion or order in which the Special Rules concerned may require vacancies to be filled by persons recruited direct and by those recruited by transfer shall be applicable only to substantive vacancies in the permanent cadre;_ _(b) a person shall be recruited direct only against a substantive vacancy in such permanent cadre, and only if the vacancy is one which should be filled by a direct recruit under the Special Rules referred to in clause (a); and_ _(c) recruitment to all other vacancies shall be made by transfer._ _**Note:-** (1) All permanent vacancies and temporary vacancies except those of short duration shall be treated as substantive vacancies._ _(2) The vacancies on account of leave and deputation with a duration of less than six months shall be treated as vacancies of short duration, provided, such vacancies with a duration of three months to six months should not be treated as vacancies of short duration, if the vacancies are likely to last long or new vacancies are likely to arise._ _(3) Whenever a ratio or percentage is fixed for different methods of recruitment/appointment to a post the number of vacancies to be filled up by candidates from each method shall be decided by applying the fixed ratio or percentage to the cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment/transfer is made and not to the vacancies existing at that time.”_ O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..11.. 13. We are more concerned with Note (3) appended to Rule 5 of KS & SSR Part II which has been amended w.e.f 2.2.1993, and therein it is statutorily stipulated that whenever a ratio or percentage is fixed for different methods of recruitment/appointment to a post the number of vacancies to be filled up by candidates from each method shall be decided by applying the fixed ratio or percentage to the cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment/transfer is made and not to the vacancies arising at that time. There arose legal controversy as to whether the abovesaid provisions contained in Note (3) to Rule 5 of Part II of the general rules will prevail over or will be subservient to the provisions contained in the Special Rules, more particularly, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 2 of KS & SSR Part II which stipulates that if any provision in the general rules contained in the Part is repugnant to a provision in the special rules applicable to any particular service contained in Part III, the latter shall, in respect of that service, shall prevail over the provision contained in the general rules in this part (Part II), etc. O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..12.. 14. The Apex Court in the decision in _**S. Prakash & anr. v. K.M. Kurian & anr. [(1999) 5 SCC 624)**_ has categorically held that Note (3) to Rule 5 of KS & SSR Part II which is the general rules, could be applicable to all special rules contained in the general rules under Part III thereof, and the intention of the rule making authority in introducing said Note (3) was to establish a rule of universal application to all the services of the State of Kerala for which the special rules are framed and then the special rules will give way to general rules enacted for that purpose. While doing so, their Lordships of the Apex Court in _**Prakash's**_ case supra [ _**(1999) 5 SCC 624]**_ , has also reversed the contra view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the said case reported in 1998 (2) KLT 723. It was held therein by the Apex Court that Note (3) emphatically stated that the ratio has to be computed on the cadre strength of the post to which recruitment is to be made and not on the basis of vacancies existing at that time, and that the language of the Note is crystal clear and it is for removal of any ambiguity by using positive and negative terms, and that it applies O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..13.. to all Special Rules whenever a ratio or percentage is prescribed in the rules, etc. The abovesaid decision of the Apex Court in the decision in _**S. Prakash & anr. v. K.M. Kurian & anr. [(1999) 5 SCC 624)**_ was subsequently followed by the Apex Court in the decision in _**Prasad Kurien & Ors. v. K.J. Augustine & Ors. [(2008) 3 SCC 529]**_ wherein the Special Rules for the Kerala Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Service provided that every fourth vacancy in the category of the Excise Inspector shall be filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment. The contention raised therein that general application cannot be made applicable to the special rules was repelled by the Apex Court. It was held therein that if the rules say that for every fourth vacancy is to be filled up by direct recruitment, that means the ratio is 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion, and the said ratio could only be maintained if the entire cadre strength reserve is taken into consideration, etc. However, the Apex Court has held in the decision in _**Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala & Ors [(2010) 4 SCC 498]**_ that where the special rules of a O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..14.. particular service are amended after the incorporation of Note (3) to Rule 5 of the general rules w.e.f 2.2.1993, and said amendment to special rules make a contra intention of the rule making authority that the abovesaid ratio is to be worked out on the basis of arising vacancy, etc, then the subsequent norms introduced as per the amendment of the special rules subsequent to 2.2.1993 will be a contra intention of the rule making authority, which would prevail over the earlier intention of the rule making authority made out as per Note (3) to Rule 5 of the general rules which was effected from 2.2.1993. 15. In the instant case, the Special Rules that govern the case is one as per Ext.P-4 which has been promulgated as per SRO on 18.8.1975 whereas, Note (3) to Rule 5 of KS & SSR Part II has been introduced in the statute book w.e.f 2.2.1993. So, the subsequent intention of the rule making authority made out as per Note (3) to Rule 5 of KS & SSR Part II will prevail over any other contra prescription in the Special Rules. Further there is no special prescription in Ext.P-4 Special Rules that the abovesaid ratio O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..15.. should necessarily be worked out only as against the arising vacancy. Even if it is assumed that there were such a provision, the same would stand overruled by the intention of the rule making authority in promulgating Note (3) to Rule 5 of KS & SSR Part II w.e.f 2.2.1993. In other words, the _ratio decidendi_ laid down by the Apex Court as in the decision in _**S. Prakash & anr. v. K.M. Kurian & anr. [(1999) 5 SCC 624]**_ and _**Prasad Kurien & Ors. v. K.J. Augustine & Ors. [(2008) 3 SCC 529]**_ would be applicable in the facts of this case. So also, the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in _**Maya Mathew's**_ case supra _**[(2010) 4 SCC 498]**_ will not apply in the instant case inasmuch as, no contrary statutory amendment of the Special Rules is made after 2.2.1993. So, the upshot of above discussion is that Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the O.P. is fully correct in contending that the abovesaid ratio of direct recruitment to promotion for the post of Boat Masters is to be applied only on the basis of percentage of cadre strength of the posts of Boat Masters, and not on the basis of the percentage of arising vacancies O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..16.. as contended by the respondents in the O.P. We declare the legal position in that regard accordingly. 16. Now, coming to further aspects of the matter, though the cadre strength in the post of Boat Masters is 160 posts, the respondents have taken up a specific plea that going by the present operational requirements of the boat services in the State, they need to fill up only 153 posts. Therefore, we will not be justified in any manner to issue any mandamus or direction so as to compel the respondents in the O.P. to fill up the post of Boat Masters exceeding the said 153 posts. From the facts admitted in the abovesaid statement dated February, 2022, filed by the 2[nd] respondent, the cadre strength to the post of Boat Masters is 160 posts and they need to fill up only 153 posts. As of now, if the ratio of 80% to 20% (direct recruitment and promotion) is applied to the cadre strength of 160 posts, then 128 posts (80% of 160 posts) are to be set apart for direct recruitment and 32 posts (20% of 160 posts) will have to be set apart for promotion. Since, the respondents have taken the considered stand that they intend to O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..17.. fill up only 153 posts now, 80% of 153 posts which is for direct recruitment would come to 122 posts and 20% of 153 posts for promotion would come to 31 posts. 17. It is seen that as of now, 21 incumbents have been given promotion as Boat Masters and 4 incumbents in the post of Lascars have been recently promoted as Boat Masters. So, altogether, if 4 incumbents are already promoted as Lascars apart from the abovesaid 21 incumbents, then altogether 25 promotees will be in position now. If that be so, the deficiency in the promotion quota reckoned as against the 153 posts would be 6 posts. Hence, it is ordered that the 2[nd] respondent will immediately ensure that the promotions are made from amongst qualified and eligible incumbents in the feeder category post of Lascars, so as to fill up the abovesaid deficiency in the promotion quota, and it shall be ensured that as against the said 153 posts, atleast 31 promotees are in position including the present incumbents. If, as a matter of fact, 25 promotees are in position, then it shall be ensured that 6 more incumbents in the post of Lascars are duly promoted to the O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..18.. post of Boat Masters taking into account the qualifications and seniority of incumbents in the feeder category. Further, it is also ordered that if there is requirement for the department, and since 20% of the promotion quota worked out as against 160 posts is 32 posts, then the 2[nd] respondent may also consider as to whether one more incumbent is to be considered for promotion going by the operational requirements. The process of consideration of promotion of the incumbents in the feeder category of Lascars and effectuation of promotion orders as Boat Masters should be duly completed by the 2[nd] respondent Director of the Kerala State Water Transport Department without any further delay, at any rate within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 18. Further, it is made clear that non finalization of the final seniority list of Lascars shall not be a ground to delay the compliance of abovesaid directions, and if for any reason, the final seniority list in the category of Lascars have not been finalized as of now, then the 2[nd] respondent may make promotions as above for O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..19.. the time being on the basis of the seniority of incumbents in the post of Lascars by reckoning their date of first effective advice given by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC), as mandated in Rule 27(c) of KS & SSR Part II. There cannot be any legal impediment for reckoning the seniority based on the date of effective advice in terms of Sec.27(c) inasmuch as, the sole method of appointment to the category of Lascars is by direct recruitment through the PSC selection process. Hence, we would specifically direct that the 2[nd] respondent shall not deny or delay the abovesaid promotion in the post of Boat Masters on any such technical grounds. 19. Further, Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the O.P. had submitted that the deficiency in the quota of direct recruitment may also be directed to be filled up by temporary promotion under Rule 31(a)(i) of KS & SSR Part II. 20. Since, it is stated by the 2[nd] respondent in his statement that the rank list prepared by the PSC has expired and long time O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..20.. has elapsed for the finalization of next seniority list, etc we do not want to enter into those areas, except to say that if any of the applicants herein or any of the eligible Lascars have any such claim or request, they may make a written representation in that regard before the 2[nd] respondent Director, who may consider the said plea and take necessary action in accordance with law, and while doing so, it shall be ensured that any temporary appointment made to the vacant posts in the direct recruitment quota either under Rule 9(a)(i) of KS & SSR Part II or by any other provision including Rule 31(a)(i) shall only be a temporary and _ad hoc_ arrangement with the specific condition that any such appointees will have to vacate the posts immediately on the availability of PSC adviced candidates. These are all matters which would fall within the exclusive province and domain of the 2[nd] respondent Director and we need not give any other directions and orders in that regard. 21. These aspects of the matter have not been duly taken note of in the rendering of the impugned verdict of the Tribunal, and hence Ext.P-2 final order dated 10.8.2021 in O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 **==> picture [24 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** O.A.No.1534/2021 will stand substituted and modified as above. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition (KAT) will stand disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE MMG O.P. (KAT) No. 307 of 2021 ..22.. ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT).NO.307/2021** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1534/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KAT. ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO ISSUED TO THE 1ST APPLICANT BY THE PSC DATED 02.11.2018 (NO.RLC9203228/09/GW). ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SPECIAL RULES SHOWING THE PROMOTION OF BOAT MASTER FROM LASCAR. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT NOS.1 TO 8 DATED 12.07.2021. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2021 IN OA NO.1534/2021 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHART OF PRESENT QUALIFICATION AND METHOD OF APPOINTMENT AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF STATE WATER TRANSPORT SUBORDINATE SERVICE (OPERATION WING). EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA STATE WATER TRANSPORT SUBORDINATE SERVICE (OPERATING WING) SPECIAL RULES 1975. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1-15457/01 DATED 14.08.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**