THE COCHIN COLLEGE, KOCHI & THE COCHIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, COCHIN v. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GANDHINAGAR; THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN; THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT; MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN`** # **`THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1944`** # **`WP(C) NO. 8051 OF 2020`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1THE COCHIN COLLEGE, KOCHI, PIN-682002, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE. ``` ``` 2THE COCHIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, COCHIN,PIN-682002,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.P.JACOB SMT.MARIYAM JACOB ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION GANDHINAGAR,ERNAKULAM-682020.` - `2 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.` - `3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.` - `4 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERISTY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS.P.O,KOTTAYAM-686560, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.` ``` BY ADV SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN - SC SMT. RESMI THOMAS - GP SRI.SURINE GEORGE IPE -SC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).11483/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 2 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 11483 OF 2020 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - `1 AMRUTHA S.KUMAR, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN ENGLISH, THE COCHIN COLLEGE, KOCHI-682 002.` - `2 ASMIN.N., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN ENGLISH, THE COCHIN COLLEGE, KOCHI-682 002.` - `3 SARAH SANTHOSH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN ENGLISH, THE COCHIN COLLEGE, KOCHI-682 002.` - `4 SHUSHUPNA.S.S., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN ENGLISH, THE COCHIN COLLEGE, KOCHI-682 002.` ``` BY ADVS. R.SANJITH P.C.SASIDHARAN C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH CHARUTHA BHAIJU P.S.ANJU ANOOP GEORGE NIYA BENNY ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.` - `2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.` - `3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GANDHINAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 020.` - `4 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.` WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 3 ``` 5THE MANAGER, THE COCHIN COLLEGE, KOCHI-682 002. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SMT.RESMI THOMAS – GP SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.R.SANJITH ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).8051/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 4 ## **`JUDGMENT`** Among the two writ petitions above, WP(C) No.8051/2020 has been filed by the Cochin College – which is affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University ('M.G.University’) and its Educational Agency; while WP(C) No.11483/2020 has been filed by two teachers appointed by the said College in its Department of English as Assistant Professors. 2. These two writ petitions deserve to be decided and disposed of together because they are both edificed on the same factual matrix. 3. The controversy in these cases has its origin in the fact that, in an Adalath conducted in the presence of a nominee of the Government - namely the jurisdictional Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (DDCE) - the workload of the Cochin College was settled, a copy of which is available as Ext.P5 in the WP(C) No.11483/2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adalath workload order'). This workload was based on the norms available when it was settled in the year 2017, namely GO(MS)No.93/2018/HEDN WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 5 dated 9.05.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘original workload order’) and it conceded to be 191 hours. Based on this, the management of the Cochin College appears to have appointed 12 persons knowing well that only eight posts had been sanctioned by the Government. This created various disputations because Government refused to accept the ‘Adalath Workload’ saying that, subsequent thereto, another Government Order bearing GO(MS) No.155/2020/HEDN dated 01.04.2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'modified workload order') had been issued, through which, the criteria accepted in the ‘original workload order’ had been altered, deleting the provisions in the said order which granted weightage to P.G.Practicals and treated 1½ hours of P.G.theory as being one hour, for calculating the workload. 4. The Government thus adopted the stand that the workload in the College was reduced to 116 hours and therefore, that appointment of the petitioners in WP(C) NO.11483/2020 cannot be allowed. 5. Before I move forward, I must, however, record that, pending this lis, the 1st and 3rd petitioners in WP(C) WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 6 No.11483/2020 have been granted approval, but from the year 2020, on the ground that two more additional posts had been sanctioned by the Government with effect from 30.12.2020. One among them, namely the 1st petitioner, now chooses to withdraw from this writ petition, however, with liberty being reserved to her to challenge the date of regularization and she makes this plea through Sri.R.Sanjith – another learned counsel. 6. I have heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned counsel for petitioners 2 to 4 in WP(C) NO.11483/2020; Smt.Mariyam Jacob – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No.8051/2020; Sri.R.Sanjith – learned counsel appearing for the 1st petitioner in WP(C) No.11483/2020; Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the M.G.University and Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 7. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan began his submissions relying upon the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in Amina v.State of Kerala (2004 (1) KLT 657), which has declared the law that private college managements are competent to appoint teachers WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 7 and they do so in accordance with the workload prescribed, such appointments are liable to be approved by the University and cannot be rejected on the ground that Government has refused to sanction such posts. He pointed out that the declarations in the said judgment are in the context of the fact that the appointments of the petitioners therein were rejected by the University saying that the State had ordered a ban on creation of new posts, but that the learned Single Judge entered the firm opinion that it was wrong and that the appointments in question had to be approved. He added that this view in Amina (supra) has been followed in several judgments thereafter, including in Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College [2007(3) KLT 355] and State of Kerala and others v. Dr.Sina.A.R. and others [2007(3) KHC 96]. The learned counsel then argued that facts of this case are no different, except that there is no ban ordered by the Government for creation of new posts, but that they refused to do so in spite of the “Adalath workload order”. He submitted that, therefore, it is without doubt that his clients are entitled to be granted all benefits of regularization from the date of their appointment and WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 8 that Government must be directed to sanction the posts from that date because, otherwise, it would lead to a situation where the workload is available, without teachers; with the students put to deleterious consequences. 8. Sri.Mariyam Jacob – learned counsel appearing for the College and its management, adopted the afore submissions of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, adding that her clients were fully authorised to make appointments when the “Adalath workload order” - which was settled in an Adalath in the presence of the DDCE - had found it to be 191 hours, thus allowing, going by the then applicable regularizations, a minimum of 12 posts. She submitted that reluctance of the Government to sanction such posts cannot be used to the detriment of her client or that of the petitioners in the other case; and thus prayed that both the matters be allowed. 9. Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the University, on the other hand, submitted that University cannot approve the appointments made by the management of the College unless posts were sanctioned by the Government to accommodate such teachers. He argued that when the WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 9 management was aware that no posts had been created to which the petitioners could have been appointed, they cannot now turn around and find fault with the University in having refused such approval. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 10. Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader, submitted that the “Adalat workload order” was not binding on the Government and that it was settled on the basis of the earlier Government Order dated 09.05.2018, which had been modified through the subsequent order dated 01.04.2020. She argued that, therefore, based on the modified criterion, Government has now evaluated the workload, to find that the College is eligible to only 166 hours, thus sanctioning two additional posts, along with eight earlier sanctioned, to which two of the petitioners in this case has now been accommodated. She thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 11. The afore rival submissions being recorded, it is without much of a doubt that the primary question in this case is whether the “Adalath workload order” was valid; and whether, on the strength of it, the management could have appointed WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 10 persons without posts having been specifically sanctioned by the Government. 12. On the question of competence of the management to appoint teachers to approved workload, certainly, Amina (supra), Shalini (supra) Sina.A.R. (supra) cover the field, since several Benches of this Court have declared unequivocally that when there is no statutory inhibition from making the said appointments and since absence of such would cause deleterious consequences to students, the University cannot refuse to approve the same merely because Government either refused or failed to create necessary posts. In fact, there was also a line of argument made by the Government with respect to such issues, that where posts are not sanctioned, the management can only engage Guest Lecturers for taking classes; but this has also been disapproved by this Court in the afore judgments. 13. Obviously, therefore, when the management had no statutory or legal incapacity from making appointments, the sole question which then arises is whether Government was in error in refusing to accept the “Adalath workload order” and to decline WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 11 creation of necessary posts based thereon. 14. The sole reason given by the Government for not accepting the “Adalath workload order” is that the criterion for assessment of workload was altered through the subsequent order dated 01.04.2020. However, what is relevant in this case is that teachers were appointed on 11.09.2017, based on the “Adalath workload order”; and pertinently, the criterion that governed the said order continued for at least another 2½ years thereafter. 15. When one examines the impugned order dated 11.02.2020, which has been produced as Ext.P10 in WP(C) NO.11483/2020 and as Ext.P16 in WP(C) No.8051/2020, it is rendered without doubt that Government also recognizes that the “Adalath workload order” had found the workload eligible to the College to be 191 hours. They also admit that this was settled in an Adalath in which their nominee, namely the DDCE, participated; and that he had recommended that the number of vacancies to be sanctioned to this College was 12. Had the Government accepted the proceedings at that time, certainly 12 posts would have become eligible to the College; but they chose WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 12 not to do so and thereafter, nearly 2½ year later, modified the criteria for assessing the workload, through order dated 01.04.2020, thus holding that the workload eligible to the College is much lesser than 191. 16. I am afraid that the afore stand of the Government cannot be granted approval because, what is relevant was the workload of the year 2017 when the teachers were appointed, which could have been governed only by the orders issued by it at that time. To paraphrase, if the subsequent order had not been issued by the Government, then certainly the “Adalath workload order” would have remained in force and it would have obligated the Government to create posts in terms of the same. Therefore, the mere fact that a subsequent Government Order modified the criteria for calculating the workload, would be of no relevance, except for such calculation prospective to it; and consequently, the teachers cannot be put to prejudice on account of this. This is more so because, the Government themselves had chosen, through order dated 22.05.2020 – a copy of which is on record as Ext.P8 in WPC No.11483/2020 – to specifically state that all WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 13 appointments prior to 09.05.2018 will be protected. Of course, the argument of Sri.Surin George Ipe and the learned Government Pleader to this is that said order only relates to sanctioned posts and not to the ones which had been filled up by the management without the concurrence of the Government. 17. Here again, I must say that I cannot find favour with the aforesaid submissions because as already seen above, Amina (supra) Shalini (supra) and Sina A.R. (supra), allow the management to make appointments when the workload is settled; and it is virtually without contest that, when the ‘Adalath workload order’ was issued, the accepted criteria conceded to 191 hours of teaching, which permitted creation of 12 posts. Since the Government had created only 4 posts at that time, they certainly ought to have considered creation of balance 8 posts immediately thereafter, but could not have waited for another 2½ years to modify the criteria for computation of the workload and then to deny creation of posts. In the afore circumstances, I order these Writ Petitions and set aside Ext.P10 in WP(C)No.11483/2020 and Exts.P15 and P16 WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 14 in WP(C)No.8051/2020; with a consequential direction to the Government to sanction the balance two posts, based on the ‘Adalath workload order’, settled in the Adalath headed by the DDCE and which is conceded in its impugned orders. This shall be done as expeditiously as is possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On the posts being so sanctioned, the University will reconsider the application for approval of the appointment of the petitioners in WP(C)No.11483/2020, adverting to Statute 16(3) of Chapter 45 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, without any avoidable delay, but not later than two months thereafter. Needless to say, all eligible benefits shall also be made available to the teachers immediately thereafter. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` SAS/RR ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ``` WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 15 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11483/2020`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`EXHIBIT P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED`| ||`11.09.2017 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.`| |`EXHIBIT P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED`| ||`11.09.2017 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.`| |`EXHIBIT P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED`| ||`11.09.2017 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.`| |`EXHIBIT P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED`| ||`11.09.2017 OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.`| |`EXHIBIT P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF WORKLOAD`| ||`FOR THE YEAR 2017 TO 2018 OF THE COCHIN`| ||`COLLEGE IN THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT.`| |`EXHIBIT P6`|`TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER`| ||`GO(MS)NO.155/2020/HEDN DATED 01.04.2020.`| |`EXHIBIT P7`|`TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER`| ||`GO(MS)NO.93/2018/H.EDN DATED 09.05.2018.`| |`EXHIBIT P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED`| ||`22.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`| ||`TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`| |`EXHIBIT P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`| ||`07.11.2019 IN WPC NO.24393/2019.`| |`EXHIBIT P10`|`TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER`| ||`GO(MS)NO.245/2020/H.EDN DATED`| ||`11.02.2020.`| |`EXHIBIT P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03-06-2020`| ||`ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH`| ||`RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER`| ||`BEARING NO. G.O. (MS) NO. 471/2020 HEDN`| ||`DATED 30.12.2020, ( IN IA I/2022 , IN`| ||`IA. 2/2022).`| |`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`|| |`ANNEXURE R4(a)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT)`| ||`No.2004/2017/HEDN DATED 06-11-2017.`| |`ANNEXURE R4(b)`|`TRUE COPY OF UO`| ||`No.359/B2/2/ACADEMIC/2020 DATED 25-02-`| ||`2020`| |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |`Exhibit P15`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER`| ||`NO.2351/ACB2/2022/M.G.U. DATED 05-03-`| ||`2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. TRUE`| ||`COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2351/AC`| ||`B2/2022/M.G.U. DATED 05/03/2022. IN IA`| ||`4/2022.`| |`Exhibit P16`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSITY`| WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 16 ``` NO-5266/AC B 2/2022/M.G.U.DATED.19.5.2022 ``` ``` RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R3ATRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA NO. 585/2020. Annexure R3 BTRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT IN WA NO. 2164/2018. Annexure R3 CTRUE COPY OF GO (P) NO. 602/2012/HEDN DATED 28.11.2012. Exhibit R2 ATRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (P) NO. 5/2001/H.EDN. DATED 03.01.2001. Exhibit R2 BTRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS.) NO. 61/2002/H.EDN. DATED 17.06.2002. Exhibit R2 CTRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS) NO. 193/2020/H.EDN . DATED 25.05.2020. ``` ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 12TH JULY 2021 IN WPC NO. 8704/2021. Exhibit P13TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08/09/2021. Exhibit P14TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ``` WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 17 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8051/2020`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`EXHIBIT P1`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WORKLOAD DATED`| ||`19.7.2016 APPLICABLE TO ENGLISH`| ||`DEPARTMENT.`| |`EXHIBIT P2`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER FORWARDED`| ||`BY FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND`| ||`RESPONDENT DATED 14.2.2017`| |`EXHIBIT P3`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WORKLOAD ASSESSED`| ||`BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY`| ||`DATED 28.10.2016`| |`EXHIBIT P4`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN`| ||`W.P(C)NO.39088/2016 DATED 16.12.2016`| |`EXHIBIT P5`|`TRUE PHOTCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED`| ||`21.3.2017 ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT TO`| ||`THE SECOND RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P6`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN`| ||`W.P(C)NO.14501/2017 DATED 9.5.2017`| |`EXHIBIT P7`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED`| ||`6.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P8`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN`| ||`W.P(C)NO.14501/2017 DATED 9.11.2017`| |`EXHIBIT P9`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER`| ||`ISSUED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER`| |`EXHIBIT P9(A)`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER`| ||`ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P9(B)`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER`| ||`ISSUED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER.`| |`EXHIBIT P9(C)`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER`| ||`ISSUED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER.`| |`EXHIBIT P10`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR`| ||`APPROVAL BY THE FIRST PETITIONER`| ||`FORWARDED TO THE UNIVERSITY WITHOUT`| ||`DOCUMENTS DATED 13.10.2017`| |`EXHIBIT P10(A)`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR`| ||`APPROVAL BY THE FIRST PETITIONER`| ||`FORWARDED TO THE UNIVERSITY WITHOUT`| ||`DOCUMENTS DATED 13.10.2017`| |`EXHIBIT P10(B)`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR`| ||`APPROVAL BY THE FIRST PETITIONER`| ||`FORWARDED TO THE UNIVERSITY WITHOUT`| ||`DOCUMENTS DATED 13.10.2017`| |`EXHIBIT P10(C)`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR`| ||`APPROVAL BY THE FIRST PETITIONER`| WPC 8051/20 & 11483/20 18 - `FORWARDED TO THE UNIVERSITY WITHOUT DOCUMENTS DATED 13.10.2017` - `EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE COLLEGE DATED 22.11.2017` - `EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE COLLEGE TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 8.12.2017.` - `EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO.93/18/H.EDN.DATED 9/4/18.` - `EXHIBIT P14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.24393/2019 DATED 7.11.2019` - `EXHIBIT P15 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P16 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE NO.G.O(RT)NO.245/2020 H.EDN.DATED 11.2.2020` - `EXHIBIT P17 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P18 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.33527/2016 DATED 22.1.2018` - `EXHIBIT P19 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.6.2019.` - `RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R3(A) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA NO.585/2020. Annexure R3(B) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA NO.2164/2018.` - `Annexure R3(C) TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.602/2012/HEDN DATED 28.11.2012.`