T. Pushparaj v. Union of India & Others (W.P.(C) Nos. 842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 842 of 2010** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 114/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 29-08-2008** ## **PETITIONER:** **T.PUSHPARAJ, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT VADAKKEVILA VEEDU, KUTHIRAKKULAM (PO), VEMBAYAM,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.A.S.SABU SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 BIJU PRABHAKAR, PROJECT DIRECTOR KERALA LAND INFORMATION MISSION, STATE PROJECT OFFICE, T.C.XI/549, MUSEUM BAINS COMPOUND, KAWADIAR (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003. 2 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE & PENSION, NEW DELHI. 3 UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SHAJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI.** 2 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 - **4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **5 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY** **GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPECIAL A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **6 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **7 P.M.SUDHA, SENIOR TOWN PLANNER TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT,, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, RESIDING AT SRI, TC 11/486-1, NANTHEN NAGAR, KAWDIAR (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R1 BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) R2&R3 SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC R4 TO R6 SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **SRI T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR** **R7 ADV.SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.) SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).6080/2010 & WP(C).6116/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 6080 of 2010** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 228/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER:** **T.M.SUDHA, SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, RESIDING AT SRI,T.C.11/486-1,NANTHEN NAGAR, KOWDIAR.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,NEW DELHI.** - **2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND, PENSION, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NEW DELHI.** 4 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 - **3 UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,UPSC, SHAJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI.** - **4 SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER REGULATION 3 OF THE INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE, (APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION) REGULATION,1955, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,UNION PUBLIC SERVICE, COMMISSION,SHAJAHAN ROAD,NEW DELHI.** - **5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **6 BIJU PRABHAKAR, ASSISTANT SECRETARY DIRECTORATE OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS,, VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC R3 & R4 ADV.SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL R5 BY SR.G.P.SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR R6 SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.V.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).6116/2010 & WP(C).842/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 5 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 6116 of 2010** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 114/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** **PETITIONER:** **T.M.SUDHA, SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, RESIDING AT SRI, T.C.11/486-1, NANTHEN NAGAR, KOWDIAR.P.O,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE**| |---|---| ||**SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF**| ||**PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,**| ||**PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, NEW DELHI.**| |**2**|**UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UPSC, SHAJAHAN**| ||**ROAD, NEW DELHI.**| |**3**|**STATE OF KERALA**| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO**| ||**GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| 6 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 - **4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL ADMINISTRATION[SPECIAL A] DEPARTMENT,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **5 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **6 BIJU PRABHAKAR ASSISTANT SECRETARY DIRECTORATE OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS,, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **7 P.PUSHPARAJ, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDNG AT VADAKKEVILA VEEDU,, KUTHIRAKKULAM.P.O, VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS.** **R1 SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC** - **R2 SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTILSC UPSC R3 TO R5 SR.G.P.SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR** - **R6 SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)** - **R7 SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN** **SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).6080/2010 & WP(C).842/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 7 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Ravikumar, J.** The issue involved in all the captioned writ petitions is one and the same. The writ petitioners call in question the inclusion of one Biju Prabhakar, the common party respondent, in the list for appointment to IAS cadre from Non State Civil Service source. They, in unison, contend that Biju Prabhakar did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for consideration for such appointment under the said source. W.P. (C)No.842 of 2010 is filed against the order dated 24.8.2009 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.114 of 2008. The said Original Application was filed by the aforesaid Biju Prabhakar seeking quashment of Annexure-A1 and declarations on the following lines:- “a) call for the records connected with the case; - b) declare that Annexure A1 order passed by the 3[rd] respondent is patently illegal, wrong and not sustainable in the eye of law; - c) quash Annexure A1 order passed by the 3[rd] respondent; - d) declare that the applicant will not be holding a substantive post in the State Civil Service till he is appointed substantively to the post of Deputy Collector after the declaration of probation; - e) declare that the applicant is serving in connection with the affairs of the State under the State Govt. in a 8 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 gazetted post in a substantive capacity involving duties comparable in importance and responsibilities to that of the State Civil Service in a non civil service department, till he is substantively appointed in the state civil service; - f) declare that the applicant is eligible to be included in the zone of consideration for appointment by selection to the Kerala Cadre of IAS in the light of the nomination by the Principal Secretary-Revenue under whom he is working at that time; - g) direct the respondents to include the applicant in the zone of consideration for selection and appointment to the Kerala Cadre of IAS under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997; - h) pass such other orders that are deemed just, fair and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Annexure-A1 is an order, virtually in the form of a letter, dated 12.12.2007 rejecting the applicant's claim for inclusion in the zone of consideration for selection to IAS from Non-State Civil Service, passed by the third respondent therein. W.P.(C)No.6116 of 2010 also carries challenge against the order in O.A.No.114 of 2008. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6116 of 2010 filed W.P.(C)No.6080 of 2010 raising challenge against the order in O.A.No.228 of 2009 passed by the Tribunal. In fact, the said Original Application was filed by her seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 therein to appoint her to the Indian Administrative Service as against one of the vacancies earmarked in the State of Kerala for persons not belonging to the State Civil Service for the year 2008. Virtually, the said O.A. also carried a contention that 9 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 the 6[th] respondent therein, viz., Sri.Biju Prabhakar was not entitled to be appointed against the vacancies earmarked for the year 2008 under that quota. Since the issues are intertwined and interconnected the Tribunal had jointly considered the Original Applications and passed a common order. As per the said common order dated 24.8.2009 O.A.No.114 of 2008 was allowed and the applicant therein viz., Sri.Biju Prabhakar was held entitled to be included in the zone of consideration of the DPC held for the year 2008 for appointment to the IAS cadre from Non-State Civil Service and at the same time O.A.No.228 of 2009 was dismissed. 3. When these matters are taken up for consideration the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.842 of 2010 sought for adjournment. Taking note of the fact that the writ petition was filed in the year 2010 and as early as on 25.5.2012 it was posted for disposal along with W.P.(C)Nos.6116 and 6080 of 2010 and that it is coming for consideration more than six years therefrom, we have declined to accede to the request. Since the matters are pending before this Court for more than 8 years and in view of the earlier order dated 25.5.2012 we proceed with consideration of the matters, on merits. 4. A short proem is required before such consideration. Initially O.A.No.114 of 2008 was allowed by the Tribunal as per order 10 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 dated 29.8.2008 and the said Biju Prabhakar was declared entitled to be included in the zone of consideration for selection and appointment to the Indian Administrative Service. Thereafter, third parties to the said O.A. filed review application Nos.20 and 21 of 2009. In fact, R.A.No.20 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.842 of 2010 and R.A.No.21 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6080 of 2010 who is also the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6116 of 2010. Those review applications were allowed as per order 13.3.2009 and the order in O.A.No.114 of 2008 dated 29.8.2008 was recalled. The impugned common order dated 24.8.2009 was passed thereafter and it is discernible from it that prior to the passing of the order in the aforesaid review applications the applicant in O.A.No.114 of 2008 viz., Sri.Biju Prabhakar was considered, selected and appointed to the I.A.S cadre under the Non-State Civil Service quota. The common order in the aforesaid review applications was challenged by the applicant (Sri.Biju Prabhakar) before this Court in W.P.(C)No.9339 of 2009. As per judgment dated 31.3.2009 in the said writ petition he was allowed to continue in the IAS cadre provisionally till O.A.No.114 of 2008 was heard and disposed. As noticed hereinbefore, as per common order dated 24.8.2009 O.A.Nos.114 of 2008 and 228 of 2009 were disposed of by the Tribunal and in fact, O.A.No.114 of 2008 was allowed, as mentioned above and O.A.No.228 of 2009 was dismissed. It is 11 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 aggrieved by the said common order that the captioned writ petitions are filed. ## 5. Heard. 6. As stated earlier, essentially, the contentions in all the captioned writ petitions is that Biju Prabhakar, the first respondent in W.P.(C)No.842 of 2010 (the applicant in O.A.No.114 of 2008) was not eligible to be included in the list for appointment to IAS cadre under the Non-State Civil Service quota for the year 2008. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter in this judgment in accordance with their rank and status in O.A.No.114 of 2008, wherein the aforesaid Biju Prabhakar is the applicant and the petitioners in W.P. (C)Nos.842 & 6080 of 2010 were respondents 6 and 7 respectively, unless otherwise specifically mentioned. 7. The core contention of the petitioners as regards the ineligibility of the applicant is that he had not completed 8 years' continuous service in connection with the affairs of the State, on the first day of January of the year concerned viz., 2008. In the context of the said common contention it is only apposite to refer to the eligibility conditions prescribed for such appointment under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997. The relevant provision therein is Regulation 4 and it reads thus:- 12 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 “ **4. State Government to send proposals for consideration of the Committee.** -(1) The State Government shall consider the case of a person not belonging to the State Civil Service but serving in connection with the affairs of the State who, (i) is of outstanding merit and ability; and - (ii) holds a Gazetted post in a substantive capacity; and - (iii) has completed not less than 8 years of continuous service under the State Government on the first day of January of the year in which his case is being considered in any post which has been declared equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service and propose the person for consideration of the Committee. The number of person proposed for consideration of the Committee shall not exceed five times the number of vacancies proposed to be filed during the year. Provided that the State Government shall not consider the case of a person who has attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January of the year in which the decision is taken to propose the names for the consideration of the Committee: Provided also that the State Government shall not consider the case of person who, having been included in an earlier select list, has not been appointed by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of regulation 9 of these regulations.” 8. Thus, it is obvious that Regulation 4 provides that the State Government shall consider the case of a person not belonging to the State Civil Service but serving in connection with the affairs of the State for appointment under Non-State Civil Service quota subject to 13 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 the fulfillment of the conditions specifically provided thereunder. Therefore, the question is whether the consideration of the Tribunal that culminated in the conclusion that the applicant was entitled to be included in the zone of consideration under the Non-State Civil Service quota for selection to IAS cadre, for the year 2008 invites interference in exercise of the power of judicial review. There is no dispute with respect to fulfillment of condition No.(i) by the applicant. We will deal with the contention of the petitioners on the question whether the applicant was holding a gazetted post in a substantive capacity a little later. 9. The main dispute is with respect to condition No.(ii) which mandates completion of not less than 8 years of continuous service under the State Government, for consideration under the aforesaid quota. While respondents 6 and 7 (petitioners herein) contend that the applicant did not fulfill the condition prescribed thereunder on the relevant date viz., on 1.1.2007, the precise case of the applicant is that he did possess the eligibility for such consideration, on that day. As noticed hereinbefore, going by the condition thereunder in order to earn eligibility for consideration under Section 4(1) the person concerned must have completed not less than 8 years of continuous service under the State Government on the first day of the year in which his case is being considered, in any post which has been 14 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 declared equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service. 10. Evidently, the Tribunal had considered the question as to what was the status of the post held by the applicant during the relevant period. In other words, he was holding any post declared equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service and if so, how long ? Admittedly, he was then working as Technical Officer (Chemical) in the Factories and Boilers Department. In fact, he was sent on deputation to the said post on 6.5.1996 while working as Senior Assistant Plant Manager in Hindustan Latex Limited which is a Central Public Sector undertaking. While continuing so, his services were regularised in the said post as per Annexure-A6 order viz., G.O. (MS)No.108/2000/LBR dated 27.11.2000, marked as such in W.P. (C)No.6116 of 2010. A perusal of the same would reveal that for the reasons specifically mentioned thereunder and acknowledging the exceptionally efficient services rendered by him as Technical Officer (Chemical) he was ordered to be regularized permanently in the Factories and Boilers Department as Technical Officer (Chemical) in the scale of pay of Rs.8250-13650. The materials on record would reveal that he continued to hold the said post till 30.7.2006. In short, he worked as Technical Officer (Chemical) in the Factories and Boilers Department from 6.5.1996 till 30.7.2006. It is to be noted that the 15 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 said order regularizing his services as Technical Officer (Chemical) in the Factories and Boilers Department was not at all challenged by the petitioners. True that, initially, Government took up the stand that the period from 6.5.1996 could not be considered for the aforesaid purpose. State Government had declined to take into account the service of the applicant from 6.5.1996 till 27.11.2000, the date of Annexure-A6 order (in Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.6116/2010) for the aforesaid purpose. Virtually, it was that disinclination that constrained the applicant to approach the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.114 of 2008. Prior to the filing of the said Original Application he had approached the Government seeking to reckon the period from 6.5.1996 till 27.11.2000 as qualifying service for the purpose of earning eligibility for consideration for appointment to IAS cadre under Non-State Civil Service quota. It is after the rejection of his representation carrying such a prayer as per Annexure-A1 (in O.A.No.114 /2008) that he filed the said Original Application. A perusal of the impugned common order dated 24.8.2009 passed by the Tribunal would reveal that the petitioners herein/respondents 6 and 7 therein, had also raised a contention that the applicant was not holding a Gazetted post in a substantive capacity in Non-State Civil Service as on 1.1.2007. On 1.1.2007, he became a member of State Civil Service. Their contention was that the applicant had regular service under the State Government only with effect from 27.11.2000, the date of 16 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 Annexure-A6 order in Ext.P2 and therefore, he was lacking 8 years' continuous service under the State Government as on 1.1.2007. 11. The Tribunal had considered the aforesaid contentions and found that Annexure-A6 order dated 27.11.2000 would reveal that the applicant was regularized in the post of Technical Officer (Chemical) in the scale of pay of Rs.8250-13650, at a time when the pay scale of the Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service was Rs.7800-12975. Taking note of the said aspect, the Tribunal held that the applicant was working as Technical Officer (Chemical) in the Factories and Boilers Department, carrying the pay scale of Rs.8250-13650, a post higher than the post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service. In the contextual situation, we will consider Annexure-A6 (in Ext.P2 in W.P. (C)No.6116 of 2010). A bare perusal of Annexure-A6 order would reveal the following aspects:- The applicant had been working in the Factories and Boilers Department as Technical Officer (Chemical) from 6.5.1996. The Director of the said Department reported to the State Government that the applicant got the necessary qualification and experience prescribed in the Special Rules for appointment to the post of Technical Officer and his performance as Technical Officer was excellent. In Annexure-A6 it is stated thus:- 17 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 “In view of the exceptionally efficient services rendered by Sri.Biju Prabhakar Government hereby order to regularize permanently Sri.Biju Prabhakar, Senior Assistant Plant Manager, Hindustan Latex Limited (a Central Public Sector undertaking) who is now working on deputation in the Factories and Boilers Department as Technical Officer (Chemical), in the scale of pay of Rs.8250-13650/- by over ruling the advice of the Public Service Commission.” (underline supplied) It is thus evident that the Government had taken into account the fact that the applicant had been working as Technical Officer (Chemical) in the Factories and Boilers Department since 6.5.1996 and that Hindustan Latex Limited got no objection in his absorption into the State service permanently, specifically ordered under Annexure-A6 to regularize him permanently as Technical Officer (Chemical) in the said department, in the scale of pay of Rs.8,250-13650/-. When his service as Technical Officer (Chemical) from 6.5.1996 was thus regularized permanently there is no reason to hold that the Tribunal had gone wrong in reckoning his service from 6.5.1996 till 26.11.2000 also for the purpose of considering whether he was having 8 years continuous service under the State Government as on the relevant date. In this context, it is to be noted that despite the quashment of Annexure-A1 order dated 12.12.2007 whereby Government had declined to reckon his service from 6.5.1996 to 26.11.2000 for the purpose of computing 8 years of continuous regular service in the Factories and Boilers Department, as per the common order dated 24.8.2009, Government 18 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 did not challenge the same for invoking the judicial review jurisdiction of this Court. That apart, it is to be noted that the dispute on the part of all the respondents, was only on the question whether the period from 6.5.1996 to 26.11.2000 could be reckoned for the said purpose. It is to be noticed what was ordered under Annexure-A6 order dated 27.11.2000 is to regularize him permanently as Technical Officer (Chemical). When the order was to `regularize him permanently' there is no reason or justification for not reckoning the period from 6.5.1996 to 26.11.2000 for the aforesaid purpose. 12. The discussion in various other paragraphs of the impugned order dated 24.8.2009 passed by the Tribunal would reveal that the Tribunal had considered the question whether his service from 6.5.1996 could be considered as `working in connection with affairs of the State'. While endorsing the reasoning of the Tribunal specifically made thereunder even otherwise, going by the very impact and effect of his regularization permanently as Technical Officer (Chemical) in the said department, we are of the view that the service from 6.5.1996 has to be taken as period spent on `working in connection with the affairs of the State' for the indisputable position that Department of Factories and Boilers is a department of the State, but it is not belonging to State Civil Service. Having regularized him permanently as Technical Officer (Chemical) in the Factories and Boilers Department as per Annexure-A1 19 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 the Government could not be permitted to contend otherwise. In fact, realising and acknowledging the said position Government, evidently, accepted the said finding of the Tribunal made as per common order dated 24.8.2009. 13. Now, we will consider the contention of respondents 6 and 7 viz., the petitioners herein, raised against reckoning of the period from 6.5.1996 to 26.11.2000 during which admittedly, the applicant was performing the duties of Technical Officer (Chemical) in the Factories and Boilers Department. As already stated as per AnnexureA6 dated 27.11.2000 Government had regularized the applicant permanently as Technical Officer (Chemical) in the said department. The core contention of respondents 6 and 7 is that from 6.5.1996 till 26.11.2000 the applicant who was Senior Assistant Plant Manager in Hindustan Latex Limited, was on deputation in the Factories and Boilers Department and hence, during that period he could not have been considered as belonging to the Factories and Boilers Department. To put it briefly, according to them, during the said period he could not be considered as a member of Non-State Civil Service under the State Government for the purpose of fulfillment of 8 years of continuous period required to earn eligibility for inclusion in the zone of consideration for appointment to IAS cadre under Non-State Civil Service quota. For the aforesaid purpose what is required is 8 years 20 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 continuous service under the State Government on the first day of the year in which his case being considered. We will consider the other limb of the requirement to satisfy condition No.(iii) therein later. At this juncture, it is to be noted that what is required is that the person concerned must have completed not less than 8 years of continuous service under the State Government on the first day of January of the year in which his case is being considered. In this context, it is relevant to note that though under condition No.(ii) holding a gazetted post in a substantive capacity was prescribed such a specific prescription viz., in a substantive capacity or regular service, is not there under condition No.(iii). The fact that since 6.5.1996 till 26.11.2000 and thereafter, on the strength of Annexure-A6 the applicant had been performing the duties of Technical Officer (Chemical) in the Factories and Boilers Department is not at all disputed by any of the parties. As per Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.842 of 2010 viz., G.O.(Rt)No.1001/2005/LBR dated 16.4.2005, the probation of the applicant in the post of Technical Officer (Chemical) was declared with effect from 2.1.2004. 14. Certain other aspects also require consideration. After getting regularized in the Factories and Boilers Department as per Annexure-A6 dated 27.11.2000 and before the declaration of the probation as per Ext.P3, referred above, the applicant was put in full additional charge as Project Consultant of IT @ School Project of the 21 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 General Education Department, on 11.10.2001 as per G.O. (Rt)No.3815/2001/G.EDN. Thereafter, as per Annexure-A7 viz., G.O. (Ms.)No.86/2004/G.EDN. dated 22.3.2004 Government had created the post of Executive Director in the grade of Deputy Director of Education in the General Education Department in the scale of pay of Rs.8250-13650/- and appointed the applicant to that post, on deputation basis. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Annexure-A7 (in Ext.P10 in W.P.(C)No.842 of 2010) assume much relevance in the context of the case. They read thus:- “IT @ School” is a project under the Director of Public Instruction to provide IT enabled education for the schools of the State. The Project in the initial stage is being implemented in the 2400 High Schools through out the State. There is no permanent staff other than Finance Officer Gr.I for the project. There are nearly 200 fielf staff in the category of High School Assistants on working arrangement basis in all the 36 educational districts. This situation necessitated the full attention of a Senior Officer to head the Project. The various initiative undertaken under the project involves high degree of technical expertise. 2. Shri.Biju Prabhakar Technical Officer-Chemical (scale of pay of Rs.8250-13650) of the Department of Factories & Boilers (on Engineer by profession) is officiating as Executive Director of the IT @ School project at present on working arrangement basis. He had worked with IT Mission under the IT Department and also has 5 years of experience in Central government and 8 years service in State government.” (emphasis supplied) Annexure-A7 (in Ext.P10) would thus reveal that the applicant was then the Technical Officer (Chemical) in the Department of Factories and Boilers and as on the date of issuance of Annexure-A7 (in Ext.P10) viz., 22 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 22.3.2004, even according to the State Government, the applicant was having 8 years service in State Government viz., under the Department of Factories and Boilers. His appointment as Executive Director as per the same was on deputation basis from the said Department, going by Annexure-A7 (in Ext.P10). In fact, it was while working there that his probation was declared as per Ext.P3 (in W.P.(C)No.842/2010) dated 16.4.2005 with effect from 2.1.2004. While working so, he was directly recruited for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector pursuant to the advice by the Kerala Public Service Commission as per Annexure-A9 in Ext.P10, marked as such in W.P.(C)No.842/2010. We will consider the question whether with the said appointment he incurred disqualification to be considered under the Non-State Civil Service quota, later. 15. The Tribunal referred the decision of the Hon'ble Apex ## Court in **Arun Kumar** v. **Union of India ((2007) 5 SCC 580)** to hold that the period of deputation could be counted as service rendered in the organization where one is absorbed. In view of Annexure-A6 of Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.842 of 2010, regularizing the applicant permanently as Technical Officer (Chemical) and the aforesaid decision, reckoning the period from 6.5.1996 till the date of his appointment as Deputy Collector as per Annexure-A9, can only be said to be legal. We find no reason to disagree with reasons and conclusions of the Tribunal, 23 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 especially in view of the reasons assigned by us above, that the applicant was having not less than 8 years continuous service under the State Government. 16. Now, the question is whether such continuous service of the applicant under the State Government was in a post equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service ? Here also, the fact is that despite the finding of the Tribunal that he was having the prescribed length of continuous service under the State Government and it was in a post equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service the State has not chosen to challenge the same. In this context, it is also relevant to note that even in Annexure-A1 dated 12.12.2007 in O.A.No.114 of 2008 the only reason assigned by the Government was that the applicant was not having 8 years of continuous regular service in the Factories and Boilers Department and at the same time, did not state that the said post is not equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service. A bare perusal of the pleadings of the party respondents who oppose the claim of the applicant itself would reveal that they did not raise any serious dispute in the said matter. We have carefully considered the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, after taking into account the scales of pay attached to the posts of Technical Officer (Chemical) in the Factories and Boilers Department and also Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service. For 24 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 the reasons given therein and for the aforesaid reasons we do not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, as well. 17. Yet another contention was raised by the party respondents therein. It is to the effect that as on 1.1.2007 the applicant was not holding a gazetted post in a substantive capacity in a Non-State Civil Service. A scanning of the impugned order would reveal that the Tribunal had considered the said contention in extenso, with reference to various provisions as also decisions. The petitioners who were contesting party respondents before the Tribunal would contend that by virtue of his appointment as Deputy Collector as per Annexure-A9 (in Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.842/2010) dated 31.7.2006 and consequent to his joining in the State Civil Service on its strength he ceased to hold the post of Technical Officer (Chemical) and became a member of the State Civil Service. According to them, in such circumstances, he was ineligible to be included in the zone of consideration for selection to IAS cadre from the category of Non-State Civil Service, for the year 2007-2008. To put it briefly, their contention was that as on 1.1.2007 the applicant was not holding a gazetted post outside the Kerala State Civil Service, in other words, holding a gazetted post in a substantive capacity in Non-State Civil Service and that on that relevant date he was a Deputy Collector in the State Civil 25 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 Service. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the Tribunal took note of the fact that as per Annexure-A9 the applicant was accommodated against a supernumerary post and was then sent for training. Taking into account the said fact the Tribunal held that a supernumerary post could not be said to be a substantive post and being accommodated against a supernumerary post he could not have been said to belong to State Civil Service. In arriving at the said conclusion the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Apex Court in **O.P.Singla** v. **Union of India ((1984) 4 SCC 450)** . The contention of the petitioners is that the said decision got relevance and the Tribunal was completely misplaced in relying on the same. In this context, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Union of India** v. **Dr.Akhilesh Chandra Agrawal ((1998) 4 SCC 107)** rendered in agreement with its earlier decision in **D.K.Reddy** v. **Union of India ((1996) 10 SCC 177)** assumes relevance. In **Dr.Akhilesh Chandra Agrawal's** case the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench held that supernumerary posts are different from the regular posts. The Apex Court held that the said view of the Tribunal could not be sustained in view of the decision in **D.K.Reddy's** case (supra). Paragraph 17 of **D.K.Reddy's** case was quoted therein with agreement and it reads as follows:- 26 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 “17. As a result of such an exercise, if need arose Appellant 1 could be treated to have been holding supernumerary post in Junior Time Scale Grade of Group `A' posts and in all other promotional cadres. He cannot be treated to be outside the sanctioned strength of posts in Junior Time Scale Grade of Group `A' or other promotional posts as contended by learned counsel for the respondents. Otherwise, the very creation of supernumerary posts would become otiose and meaningless.” 18. In Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English the meaning of the word `supernumerary' is given as `more than you normally need'. In this context, it is also relevant to refer to the meaning of the term `substantive capacity'. It means a capacity other than an official or temporary capacity. It has been explained in the decision in **Parshotam Lal Dhingra** v. **Union of India (AIR 1958** **SC 36)** . Paragraph 12 therein to the extent it is relevant for this case reads thus:- “(12) The position may, therefore, be summarised as follows: In the absence of any special contract the substantive appointment to a permanent post gives the servant so appointed a right to hold the post until, under the rules, he attains the age of superannuation or is compulsorily retired after having put in the prescribed number of years' service or the post is abolished and his service cannot be terminated except by way of punishment for misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or any other qualification found against him on proper enquiry after due notice to him. An appointment to a temporary post for a certain specified period also gives the servant so appointed a right to hold the post for the entire period of his tenure and his tenure cannot be put an end to during that period unless he is, by way of punishment, dismissed or 27 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 removed from the service. Except in these two cases the appointment to a post, permanent or temporary, on probation or on an officiating basis or a substantive appointment to a temporary post gives to the servant so appointed no right to the post and his service may be terminated unless his service had ripened into what is, in the service rules, called a quasi-permanent service.....” In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **D.K.Reddy's** case and **Dr.Akhilesh Chandra Agrawal's** case (supra) the view that supernumerary posts are not substantive posts or regular posts cannot be sustained. 19. Before adverting to the other reasonings based on which the Tribunal repelled the contention of the party respondents that the applicant was not then belonging to Non-State Civil Service but was belonging to State Civil Service we think that it is only befitting to consider certain other facts and provisions, not adverted to by the Tribunal to arrive at the said finding. Annexure-A9 dated 31.7.2006 (in Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.842/2010) is the order by which the applicant was appointed to the post of Deputy Collector. In the context of the said contention it requires a scrutiny. True that the said appointment was pursuant to creation of a supernumerary post of Deputy Collector for a period of 14 months from the date of his joining. As per the said order along with the applicant two others were also appointed against supernumerary posts of Deputy Collector. It is also to be noted that the 28 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 supernumerary post was created to appoint the applicant for a period of 14 months from the date of his joining the training. Hence, it can only be said that his substantive appointment as Deputy Collector was not against a permanent post and it was only against a supernumerary post created temporarily for a period of 14 months, as can be seen from Annexure-A9 of Ext.P4. Hence, it could not give him a `lien' on the strict sense, going by the decision in **Parshotam Lal Dhingra's** case (supra). That apart, the said order itself would reveal that the appointment of the applicant was as Deputy Collector on training under Rule 9(a)(1) (sic., Rule 9(a)(i)) of Part II, KS & SSR as provided in Rule 10(b)(iii) of Part II, KS & SSR, in fact, in terms of the proviso thereunder. The appointment was also made subject to Rule 3(c) of Part II, KS & SSR. The following recital in Annexure-A9 dated 31.7.2006 is also relevant in the contextual situation:- “Sanction is also accorded for the payment of Rs.7800/(Pre-revised), the minimum in the scale of pay of Deputy Collectors plus the usual allowances to the trainee during the period of this training. The regular scale of pay of Deputy Collectors will be admissible to them only on successful completion of the prescribed period of training.” The period of training was for 14 months. Even if the said period is reckoned from the date of the said order viz., 31.7.2006 it would not fall beyond 1.1.2007. Going by the very contention of the party respondents it is evident that the applicant joined the training on the 29 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 strength of the said order only on 21.8.2006. 20. It is thus obvious from Annexure-A9 dated 31.7.2006 (Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.842/2010) that the appointment of the applicant made thereunder was as Deputy Collector on training under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II, KS & SSR. In that context, Rule 9(a)(iv) of Part II, KS & SSR would assume relevance and it reads thus:- “(iv) A person appointed under clause (i) or (ii) shall not be regarded as a probationer in such service, class or category or be entitled by reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to future appointment to such service, class or category.” Thus, it is evident that a temporary appointment under Rule 9(a)(i) even if made in tune with the terms provided under the proviso to Rule 10(b)(iii) of Part II, KS & SSR it would make such an appointee eligible to be regarded as a probationer in such service. In this context, Rule 5(b) of the Kerala Civil Service (Executive) Rules also assumes relevance and it reads thus:- “Every person appointed as Deputy Collector by direct recruitment shall, from the date on which he completes - the training prescribed in sub rule (b) of Rule 6, be on probation for a total period of two years on duty within a ” continuous period of three years. (emphasis supplied) Note (4) to Rule 12 (28) of Part I, KS & SSR is also worthy for reference in this context. It would reveal that there is a distinction between regarding a person as a `probationer' and regarding a person 30 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 merely `on probation'. By virtue of his appointment under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II, KS & SSR as provided in Rule 10(b)(iii) of the Rules and thereby making it temporary appointment under Rule 9(a)(i) subject to subsequent verification and satisfaction of his character and antecedents and eligibility for appointment in regular service one may think that virtually the applicant was put on probation. Note (4) to Rule 12(28) of Part I, KS & SSR would reveal that such an appointee cannot be regarded as a probationer though he could be considered at best as a person on probation to a post for determining his fitness for eventual substantive appointment to that post subject to satisfactory completion of training and also satisfaction regarding character and antecedents. Thus, it can be said that Annexure-A9 dated 31-7-2006 and his consequential joining the training programme were not be sufficient to treat him as a probationer in the State Civil Service, especially in view of Rule 5(b) of the Kerala Civl Service (Executive) Rules. Going by the same, such an appointee would be put on probation only on completion of the training prescribed in Rule 6(b) therein. Indisputably, in this case, the applicant was put on probation only on 22.10.2007 after completing the period of training. The very order in Annexure-A9 that his appointment under Rule 9(a)(i) as provided in Rule 10(b)(iii), of Part II, KS & SSR itself would reveal that his appointment in regular service, in other words, his eventual substantive appointment would depend 31 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 upon the satisfactory completion of training, satisfaction regarding character and conduct on subsequent verification. Note (1) to the proviso to Rule 9(b)(iii) would make it clear that an appointee under the said proviso could not be treated as a member of service to which he had been so appointed unless he/she is appointed in regular service in accordance with the rules. Going by Rule 26 of Part II, KS & SSR no person should at the same time be a full member of more than one service and going by the same, a probationer, an approved probationer or full member of one service when appointed to be a full member of another service should cease to be the member of the former service. Rule 26 reads thus:- “ **26. Membership of more than one service** .- No person shall at the same time be a full member of more than one service. A probationer, approved probationer or full member of one service who is appointed to be a full member of another service shall cease to be member of the former service.” As noticed hereinbefore, in view of the factual and legal position obtained in this case it is evident that after the appointment as Deputy Collector on training under Annexure-A9 upon joining the training programme the applicant had not become a probationer and in view of the provisions referred hereinbefore, his probation had started only after his successful completion of 14 months training which was completed only in October, 2007. In such circumstances, how can it be 32 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 said that the applicant had ceased to be a member of the former service viz., the Factories & Boilers Department as on 1.1.2007, as contended by the party respondents. In the light of the aforesaid provisions and the factual situation we are of the considered view that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in considering the question whether the applicant was belonging to the Factories & Boilers Department or became a member of the State Civil Service upon his appointment as per Annexure-A9, as on 1.1.2007. While considering that question evidently, the Tribunal had considered the question whether the applicant was having lien in the former Department or in the State Civil Service on the said relevant date. That question was considered based on some of the provisions referred hereinbefore and specifically mentioned in the impugned order as also based mainly on the decisions in **LIC of India** v. **Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao Kulkarni ((1997) 8 SCC 461)** , **Jagdish Lal** v. **State of Haryana ((1997) 6 SCC 538)** . Based on such consideration the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that in order to say that one belongs to the State Civil Service, he must have a firm root in that service by way of gaining a lien. In the light of **Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao Kulkarni's** case it was held that only on a substantive appointment to a permanent post one would acquire a lien in the said post and even during the period of probation one would not acquire such a lien. **Jagadish Lal** 's case was relied on to hold that 33 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 a Government servant's lien on a post should stand terminated on his acquiring a lien on a permanent post (whether under the Central Government or a State Government) outside the cadre on which he is borne. 21. We have already stated that jurisdiction of this Court over a verdict of an Administrative Tribunal is only to exercise the power of judicial review and therefore, we cannot act as an appellate court. In view of the factual and legal position obtained from the discussion as above and on considering the order impugned passed by the Tribunal we have no hesitation to hold that the cases on hand invite no interference in exercise of the power of judicial review. It is a fact that pursuant to the declaration made by the Tribunal on the first occasion, that the applicant holds a Gazetted post in a substantive capacity to satisfy the condition under clause 4(1)(iii) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations and had 8 years' continuous service under the State Government as on the relevant date, his merit and ability was considered. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that after his assessment of merit and ability he was included in the select list for the year 2008 and presently the applicant is holding the post of Special Secretary to Social Justice Department. It is to be noted that W.P.(C)No.842 of 2010 is yet to be admitted and the other matters were already admitted. No 34 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 interim order was also passed prohibiting consideration of the applicant for appointment to IAS Cadre under the Non-State Civil Service quota and he was only permitted to continue provisionally subject to the result of the writ petition. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in O.A.No.114 of 2008 that the applicant was eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of IAS Cadre under the Non-State Civil Service quota. Consequently, W.P.(C)Nos.842 & 6116 of 2010 are liable to fail. 22. In W.P.(C)No.6080 of 2010, as noticed hereinbefore, the contention was that the 6[th] respondent therein viz., the applicant was not having the qualification for being considered for appointment. We have already considered the said aspect and held that the Tribunal had correctly held the applicant as eligible for being considered for appointment to IAS Cadre under the Non-State Civil Service quota. It is to be noted that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6080 of 2010 filed W.P. (C)No.6116 of 2010 virtually challenging the said finding of the Tribunal in O.A.No.114 of 2008. In O.A.No.228 of 2009 the prayer of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6080 of 2010 was for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to appoint her to the Indian Administrative Service as against one of the vacancies earmarked in the State of Kerala for persons not belonging to Non-State Civil Service quota. Respondents 1 and 2 are respectively Union of India and Secretary to Government of India. We 35 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 are afraid, the said prayer cannot be sustained. There is no case for the petitioner that she was included in a list by the State Government for being appointed against the IAS Cadre under the said quota. The petitioner was also not subjected to the selection process by the Union Public Service Commission. The Selection Committee had also not considered the merit and ability of the petitioner for being considered for such appointment. Without undergoing such process and also after getting included in the list how the petitioner can seek for a direction for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service. That apart, it is a fact which is borne out from the materials on record that she retired from service on superannuation in 2016. It is submitted that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.842 of 2010 had also retired from service. Taking into account all such aspects we do not find any reason to interfere with the common order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.114 and 228 of 2009. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- **C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge** Sd/- **V.G.ARUN Judge** TKS W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 36 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 842/2010** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES & BOILERS DATED 06.05.1996.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 27.11.2000.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 16.04.2005.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 31.07.2006. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 12.12.2007.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A.NO.114/2008 DATED 29.08.2008. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN R.A.NOS.21 & 20/2009 DATED 13.03.2009. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A.NO.114/2008 DATED 24.08.2009. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE (APPOINTMENT BY SELECTION) REGULATIONS, 1997. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.114/2008 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 28.02.2008.** 37 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A.NO.114/2008 DATED 02.04.2008. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF R.A.NO.20/2009 DATED 27.01.2009. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF R.A.NO.21/2009 DATED 09.02.2009.** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN R.A.NO.21/2009 DATED 22.02.2009.** **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.A.NO.114/2008.** **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A.NO.114/2008 FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 09.07.2009. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN O.A.NO.114 OF 2008 DATED 17.07.2009.** 38 W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6080/2010** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO. 228/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 15/4/2009.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN O.A. NO. 228/2009 DATED 9/6/2009.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT IN O.A. NO. 228/2009 DATED 26/6/2009.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT IN O.A. NO. 228/2009 DATED 17/7/2009.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A. NO. 114/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CERNTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, DATED 24/8/2009.** W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 39 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6116/2010** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 12.12.2007** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF O.A.114/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 28.2.2008** **EXHIBIT P3** - **TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN O.A.114/2008 DATED 2.4.2008** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN O.A.114/2008, DATED NIL** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN O.A.114/2008, DATED 9.4.2008** **EXHIBIT P6** **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.A.114/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 29.8.2008** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE PETITIONER IN CONNECTION WITH HER INCLUSION IN THE LIST OF CANDIDATE FOR SELECTION FOR THE YEAR 2008 DATED 26.12.2008** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN R.A.21/2009 IN O.A.114/2008 DATED 13.3.2009** **EXHIBIT P9** **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.9339/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 31.3.2009** W.P.(C)Nos.842, 6080 & 6116 of 2010 40 **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXHIBIT P2 ORIGINAL APPLICATION WITHOUT ITS ANNEXURES DATED 17.4.2009** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT P2 ORIGINAL APPLICATION DATED 17.7.2009** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.114/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 24.8.2009** TKS