High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-03-22Allowed; impugned orders set aside.

W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2022-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: The petitions are allowed; the impugned orders terminating the petitioners are set aside.
Final Disposition: Allowed; impugned orders set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mahesh L. (Manager, Recovery)
P. M. Abdul Rahim (Manager)

Respondents

State of Kerala (represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Women and Child Development Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram — 695001)
Kerala State Women’s Development Corporation (represented by its Managing Director, KSRTC Bhavan, Attakulangara, Thiruvananthapuram — 695023)
Managing Director, Kerala State Women’s Development Corporation (KSRTC Bhavan, Attakulangara, Thiruvananthapuram — 695023)
Center for Management Development (represented by its Director, V. Raman Pillai Road, Elankom Nagar, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram — 695014)
Kerala State Women’s Development Corporation Department of Women and Children (Government of Kerala)
Principal Secretary to Government, Social Justice, Women and Child Development Department (Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram — 695001)
Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department (Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram — 695001)
State of Kerala (Chief Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram — 695001)
Center for Management Development (Director information as above)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. Fathahudeen
• J. Edampadam
• Harish Gopinath
• M. P. Seetha
• Abdul Salim M.

Counsels for Respondents

• Latha Anand
• Vishnu S. Arikkattill
• Deepu Lal Mohan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos.564 and 841 of 2022) were heard together by the Kerala High Court before Justice V. G. Arun. The petitions pertain to the termination of service of two officers of the Kerala State Women’s Development Corporation, namely Mahesh L. (Manager, Recovery) and P. M. Abdul Rahim (Manager), who had been selected through a competitive process—written test and interview—and appointed in 2016 subject to government approval. The central issue is the irregularity in the selection process: the interview component was originally recorded as 50 marks but was subsequently converted to 10, and the calculation of the 70% qualifying threshold was made by taking 70% of 90 while treating the interview marks as out of 50. The Government and the Corporation contended that the appointments were obtained through an irregular process and that termination followed a due process. The petitioners argued that they fulfilled the qualifications, and that the irregularities did not affect their performance; they also contended that termination without notice or departmental enquiry violated natural justice. In contrast, the respondents relied on precedents to argue the illegality of the process and justify termination. The court observed a clear distinction between illegal and irregular appointments: an irregular appointment can be regularised, while an illegal one is a nullity. It held that termination after six years without due process was unsustainable and quashed the impugned orders, allowing the petitions and setting aside the challenged actions, while underscoring the need for fairness and due process in public appointments.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 14 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 16 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments: illegal appointments are a nullity (non est in law) but irregular appointments may be regularised.
If an appointment is irregular, it can be regularised; if it is illegal, it cannot be regularised.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that they possessed the requisite qualifications and had secured maximum marks based on their performance in the written test and interview. They argued that the conversion of interview marks from 50 to 10 and the later imposition of a 70% benchmark after the rank list was published was an illicit alteration of the selection procedure. They asserted that the government’s approval of their appointment was obtained without fault, and that termination without notice or a prior departmental enquiry violated principles of natural justice, especially given their long service of over six years. They maintained that the irregularities were systemic rather than personal and that the illegality lay in the process, not in their individual conduct, so relief could be granted.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the appointment process involved manipulation and irregularities that warranted termination. They noted that the marks were computed by combining the written test score with interview marks incorrectly (interview marks considered out of 10 vs. 50), resulting in inflated totals and a misleading 70% cutoff. They relied on precedents establishing that serious irregularities in recruitment may justify removing personnel hired through such processes, or at least require non-notice termination in some circumstances. They argued that the petitions should be dismissed since the officers benefited from an illegitimate process, and that the court should not shield impropriety at the cost of public interest. They also relied on the government’s prior findings and the inquiry carried out by a Special Team to support their stance.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Asok Kumar Sonkar v Union of India and others	(2007) 4 SCC 54	Positive	Cited to highlight the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments and to support the principle that irregularities may be regularized whereas illegalities render an appointment null.
Satya Prakash and others v State of Bihar and others	(2010) 4 SCC 179	Positive	Cited for the principle that irregularities in recruitment can be regularized; emphasizes flexible remedy rather than automatic nullification of appointments.
Prakash and others v. State of Bihar and others	(2010) 4 SCC 179	Positive	Used in the same context to differentiate irregular from illegal in recruitment and to justify potential regularization.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 564 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** MAHESH L. AGED 45 YEARS S/O.SREEKANTAN NAIR, T.C.17/560, CHOTHI, MNRA -90, CHENGALLOOR, POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012. BY ADVS. M.FATHAHUDEEN JELSON J.EDAMPADAM HARISH GOPINATH M.P.SEETHA(K/648/2008) ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 KERALA STATE WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC BHAVAN, ATTAKULANGARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023. 3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KSRTC BHAVAN, ATTAKULANGARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023. 4 CENTER FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, NEAR GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE, ELANKOM NAGAR, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. BY ADVS. LATHA ANAND VISHNU S.ARIKKATTIL DEEPU LAL MOHAN ## **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **15.03.2022 ALONG WITH WP(C) 842/2022, THE COURT ON 22.03.2022, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 841 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** P.M.ABDUL RAHIM, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. AHAMED HAJI, MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NIRMAL ARCADE, ERANHIPALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 006, RESIDING AT BITHU RAHMA, KUNNIKKAL, THAMARASSERY P.O, KOZHIKODE , PIN 673 573. BY ADV ABDUL SALIM M. ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - 1 KERALA STATE WOMENS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION KSWDC DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, 1ST FLOOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, ATTAKULANGARA P.O, PIN 695 023, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. - 2 MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., 1ST FLOOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, ATTAKULANGARA P.O, PIN 695 023, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. - 3 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICE, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 001. - 4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 - 5 STATE OF KERALA, W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -3- REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 *6 CENTER FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, NEAR GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE, ELANKOM NAGAR, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. BY ADVS. LATHA ANAND VISHNU S.ARIKKATTIL DEEPU LAL MOHAN ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP VENUGOPAL V; SR.GP.PREMCHAND R. NAIR * R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.03.22 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2022 **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **15.03.2022 ALONG WITH WP(C) 564/2022, THE COURT ON 22.03.2022, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -4- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 22[nd] day of March, 2022 The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.564 of 2022 is working as Manager (Recovery) and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.841 of 2022, as Manager in the Kerala State Women's Development Corporation Ltd ('the Corporation'). For the purpose of convenience, the documents are referred to as described in W.P.(C) No.841 of 2022. The facts leading up to the filing of the writ petitions are as under; The Corporation had issued Ext.P2 notification inviting applications for the post of Manager (Projects), Manager (Recovery) and Manager. The petitioners applied for the notified posts and attended a written test conducted by the Centre for Management Development. Thereafter, the petitioners were called for W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -5- interview conducted by a selection committee consisting of the Chairperson, Managing Director, Additional Secretary to the Government (Department of Social Justice), one Director and a Subject Expert. Based on their performance in the written test and interview, the petitioners secured first rank for the post of Manager and Manager (Recovery) respectively. After obtaining the Government's approval as per Ext.P5, appointment orders dated 25.02.2016 and 26.02.2016 were issued to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners joined service and continued in their post for more than six years. To their dismay, by Ext.P1 order dated 04.01.2022, the Managing Director of the Corporation terminated the petitioners' service. The alleged reason for termination is an irregularity committed during the course of selection which came to light during the enquiry conducted by a Committee constituted for the W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -6- purpose. Based on the Committee's report, the Government had issued Ext.P9 communication dated 22.12.2021, requiring the Managing Director of the Corporation to terminate the petitioners. The writ petitions are filed seeking to quash Ext.P9 communication and Ext.P1 order. 2. Heard Senior Advocates N.N.Suganapalan and Kurian George Kannanthanam for the petitioners, Advocate Vishnu S.Arikkattil for the Corporation, Senior Government Pleader V.Venugopal for the State and Adv.Deepu Lal Mohan for the additional 6[th] respondent. 3. The learned Senior Counsel put forth the following contentions; The petitioners have the requisite qualification for appointment to the notified posts. They had secured maximum marks based on their performance in the written test and interview. The interview marks were fixed at 50 and there is no material to show that the total ## W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -7- marks for interview was converted to 10 based on any decision of the Board or the selection committee. The conversion of interview marks to 10 and fixing of bench mark at 70% was after the interview and publication of rank list. The Corporation had thus committed an illegality by altering the procedure, after commencement of the selection process. The petitioners were appointed by the first respondent Corporation after obtaining the Government's approval. There is no material to show that the alleged wrong computation of marks was at the petitioners' instance. In any event, termination of the petitioners being stigmatic, they should have been issued with notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing. No such opportunity was afforded since the order of termination was issued on the dictate of the Government, without independent application of mind by the Managing Director of the Corporation. ## W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -8- 4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 contended that the impugned order warrants no interference, since the petitioners had secured appointment through illegal means. The written test for the notified post was held on 27.09.2015 and those candidates, who had secured 40% marks out of 80, were shortlisted and interviewed on 19.01.2016. In the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 11.02.2016, it was resolved to prepare the select list of candidates who had secured more than 70% total marks. Accordingly, the select lists appended to Ext.R2(c) decision was drawn up and forwarded to the Government for approval. By Ext.P5, the Government granted sanction for effecting appointment from the list. As a matter of fact, the rank list placed before the Board of Directors was prepared on the basis of distorted scores. The total score was arrived at by adding the score of the written test with the aggregate ## W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -9- of the scores given by each member of the interview board out of 10, instead of adding the average score out of 10. Thus, for the purpose of arriving at the percentage of marks from out of 90, the interview marks from out of 50 was reckoned. It is based on such manipulated score sheet that the petitioners were shown to have secured 77% and 72% respectively. The actual marks scored by the petitioners are 40.3/90 (44.8% ) and 40/90 (44%) only. This manipulation was unearthed during the enquiry conducted by the Special Team constituted as per Ext.R3(g) order. As the anomalies in the selection process had been noticed by the financial inspection wing of the Government of Kerala way back in 2017 itself, the probation of the petitioners was never declared. The petitioners were therefore fully aware of the enquiry and possibility of further action. The categorical findings of the enquiry committee at Ext.R3(i) had prompted the ## W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -10- Government to direct termination of the petitioners. As the petitioners had entered service through illegal means, prior notice is not necessary and even otherwise, the manipulation of marks being undisputed, issuance of notice and subsequent enquiry would be a futile exercise. The principles of natural justice need not be complied with in such circumstances. Reliance is placed on the decision in _**Asok Kumar Sonkar v Union of India and others**_ _**[(2007) 4 SCC 54]**_ to buttress the contention that a court of law would not insist on compliance of useless formality, if the result would remain the same even thereafter. 5. The learned Government Pleader adopted the arguments of the Standing Counsel and contended that issuance of notice before termination would have served no purpose since the manipulation of marks cannot be explained or ## W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -11- wished away. 6. From the arguments advanced, the following undisputed facts emerge; The petitioners have the requisite qualification and had secured maximum marks based on their performance in the written test and interview. In the interview, each member had given marks out of 10, totaling 50 marks. The total marks was later converted to 10. There is no material on record to show that, either the Board of Directors or the Selection Committee had taken a decision to convert the interview marks to 10. Later, by decision dated 11.02.2016, the Board decided to prepare the select list of candidates who had secured total marks above 70%. While computing the 70% of 90 (80+10) marks, the interview marks of the candidates out of 50, instead of 10, was reckoned. Such computation had resulted in the petitioners securing more than 70% marks. Had the interview marks out of 10 been taken, their ## W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -12- percentage will be less than 70%. Hence, there occurred an irregularity in the selection process. But, as contended by the Senior Counsel, the same methodology was adopted in the case of all candidates and hence, the petitioners did not gain any undue advantage over the others. Moreover, it was the Managing Committee that had finalised the process of selection and published the rank list, which in turn was approved by the Government. There is absolutely no material to show that the alleged irregularity was at the instance of the petitioners. In such circumstances, it is to be considered whether the service of the petitioners could have been terminated by reason of such irregularity alone. 7. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the 'clear distinction' between an 'illegal appointment' and an 'irregular appointment'. An 'illegal appointment' occurs when the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of -13- ## W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 India and statutory rules are not complied with. In such cases, the question of exercising equity jurisdiction or granting relief based on misplaced sympathy does not arise. On the other hand, an 'irregular appointment' is one which is done in accordance with the selection procedure, but suffering from want of compliance of one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process. An irregular appointment can be regularised, whereas an illegal appointment cannot be. (see _**Satya**_ ## _**Prakash and others v. State of Bihar and others**_ _**[(2010) 4 SCC 179]**_ ). In _**Asok Kumar Sonkar,**_ the appellant was found to have been appointed illegally, as he had not acquired the requisite qualification on the date of submission of application. In that context, the Apex Court held as under; _“It is not a case where appointment was irregular. If an appointment is irregular,_ W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -14- _the same can be reguarlised. The court may not take serious note of an irregularity within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. But if an appointment is illegal, it is non est in the eye of law, which renders the appointment to be a nullity.”_ **==> picture [381 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** petitioners are concerned, there is no iota of doubt that the appointments are irregular and not illegal. Being so, the termination of the petitioners' service after six years of their appointment, that too without prior notice, affording opportunity to submit explanation and without conducting a departmental enquiry, is patently illegal and unsustainable. **==> picture [381 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. **==> picture [35 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** ## **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/ W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -15- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 564/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|PETITIONER EXHIBITS| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED| ||BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, INVITING| ||APPLICATIONS.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||25/02/2016, OF THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF| ||THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER,| ||ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED| ||04/01/2022, ISSUED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT.| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R3(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE| ||BOARD DECISION DATED 30/10/2014.| |Exhibit R3(b)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||21/11/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit R3(c)|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE| ||BOARD DECISION DATED 11/02/2016 AND| ||THE SCORE/RANK LISTS OF THE POSTS OF| ||MANAGER (RECOVERY), MANAGER, AND| ||MANAGER (PROJECTS).| |Exhibit R3(d)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||25/02/2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.| |Exhibit R3(e)|TRUE COPY OF THE TABULATION OF SCORE| ||OF INTERVIEW FOR THE POST OF MANAGER| ||(RECOVERY).| |Exhibit R3(f)|TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT| ||SUBMITTED BY THE FINANCIAL INSPECTION| ||WING.| |Exhibit R3(g)|TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.| ||(RT) NO.221/2019/SJD DATED 24/04/2019.| |Exhibit R3(h)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FORM THE| ||GOVERNMENT DATED 29/04/2019.| |Exhibit R3(i)|TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED| ||04/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT.| ## W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -16- Exhibit R3(j) TRUE COPY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE 3 MEMBER COMMITTEE. Exhibit R3(k) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/09/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit R3(i) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 06/01/2022. Exhibit R3(m) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 06/01/2022. W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -17- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 841/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |Exhibit P1|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER| |---|---| ||NO.KSWDC/EA1/1173/16 DATED 04.-01.2022| ||ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT MANAGING| ||DIRECTOR.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION| ||PUBLISHED BY THE MANGING DIRECTOR,| ||INVITING APPLICATION.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 11.09.2015| ||ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR ATTENDING| ||THE WRITTEN TEST.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 01.01.2016| ||ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR ATTENDING| ||THE INTERVIEW.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.| ||1948/B3/2016/SJD DATED 25.02.2016| ||ISSUED TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER| ||NO.KSWDC/EA1/MGR/7623/2016/1173 DATED| ||ON 26.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING| ||DIRECTOR.| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.| ||KSWDC/EA1/MGR/7623/2016/144 DATED 0N| ||03.03.2016 PERMITTING THE PETITIONER| ||TO JOIN THE SERVICE AS MANAGER ISSUED| ||BY THE MANGING DIRECTOR.| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED| ||24.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING| ||DIRECTOR.| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE| ||COMMUNICATION NO. W.C.D.D. B3/21/2021| ||W.C.D.D. DATED 22.12.2021 ISSUED BY| ||THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF THE WOMEN| ||AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R1 a|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE| ||BOARD DECISION DATED 30.10.2014| |Exhibit R1 b|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||21.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT| ## W.P.(C) Nos.564 & 841 of 2022 -18- Exhibit R2 c TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVENT PAGE OF BOARD DEVISION DATED 11.2.2016 AND THE SCORE/RANK LISTS OF THE POSTS F MANAGER (RECOVERY), MANAGER MANAGER, AND MANAGER )PROJECTS) Exhibit R2 e Exhibit R2 f TRUE COPY OF EAMIL DATED 22.12.2020 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE FINANCIAL INSPECTION WING Exhibit R2 g TRUUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT (RT) NO 221/2019 SJID DATED 24.04.2019 Exhibit R2 h TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE GOVERNMENT DATED 29.4.2019 Exhibit R2 i TRUE COPY OF REMINDER LETTER DATED 4.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit R2 j TRUE COPY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE 3 MEMBER COMMITTEEq Exhibit R2 k TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.4.2021