Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, OP(KAT) NO. 326 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA (EKM) 1711/2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/S:
1 JANESH. K, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. KESU C, RESIDING AT NADUPPATHY, KUTTIPPADAM, MUTHALAMADA P.O, PALAKKAD 678 507, NOW WORKING AS WATCHMAN AT PWD REST HOUSE, PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE ASST. ENGINEER, PWD (BUILDINGS) DIVISION, SECTION-2, PALAKKAD, KERALA 678 001. 2 RAJESH M, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. MAYANADI, RESIDING AT PADIKKAL HOUSE, VALMUTTY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678 101, NOW WORKING AS WATCHMAN AT DISTRICT OFFICE, PWD ROADS DIVISION OFFICE, PALAKKAD 678 001. BY ADVS. T.V.GEORGE LINDA GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH ITS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPLEX, MUSEUM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. OP(KAT)326/21 - : 2 :-
3 THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPLEX, MUSEUM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033 4 THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPLEX, MUSEUM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033. 5 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 6 THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (ADVICE-C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
OTHER PRESENT: SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GOVT.PLEADER, SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC KPSC THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(KAT)326/21 - : 3 :- ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ. ================== O.P(KAT) No. 326 of 2021 [Arising out of the final order in O.A.(EKM) No.1711/2020 on the file the KAT, TVM Bench] ================== Dated this the 30th day of November, 2021
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The petitioner herein has filed the instant Ext.P-2 original application O.A.(EKM)No.1711/2020 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal with the following prayers:
“i. issue an order quashing Annexure A-19 order, and ii. Declare that Applicants are eligible and entitled for category change under the 4th proviso to Rule 2 of the Kerala Last Grade Service Rules, 1966; and iii. Issue a direction to the 2 nd Respondent to enforce the 4 th Proviso to Rule 2 of Kerala Last Grade Service Rules, 1966 by issuing Appointment Orders (for the post of Office Attendants) to the Applicants, by way of Category change; within a time frame to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Tribunal; and iv. Pass such any other direction, order or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.”
2. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has now rendered
the impugned Ext.P-1 final order dated 1.10.2021 dismissing the instant O.A., but with certain directions that the competent authority of the State Government in the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department shall frame appropriate guidelines for consideration of the claims of the last grade incumbents like the original applicants holding the post of Watchman for transfer appointment to the post of
OP(KAT)326/21 - : 4 :- Office Attendant with the seriousness it deserves and that it will be open to the applicants to move R-6 in the OA (Government in the Personnel & Administrative Department) for framing appropriate
guidelines for category change by transfer appointment from the last
grade employees, etc. It is this final verdict of the Tribunal in Ext.P-1 dismissing the above OA, that is under challenge in the instant Original Petition filed at the instance of the the original applicants in the OA.
3. The prayers in the instant Original Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:
“A) issue an order, to set aside Ext.P-2 (A-19) rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent as the same is highly wrong, illegal and without any sanction of law. B) direct the 2nd respondent to allow petitioners's (sic) request for category change from Watchmen to office Attendants in any of the then existed 4 vacancies in Palakkad District (filled up with the condition that the appointment will be subject to the result of the final outcome of the O.A.(EKM) No.1711/2020) immediately without any further delay; C) to set aside Ext.P-1 dismissal order dated 1.10.2020 in O.A.(EKM) No.1711/2020 passed by the Hon'ble Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (Addl. Bench, Ernakulam) and thereby allow the O.P(KAT) with costs. D) issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. Heard Sri.T.V.George, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in the OP/applicants in the O.A. and Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 4 & 6 and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission appearing for R-5 OP(KAT)326/21 - : 5 :- in the O.P./R-5 in the O.A.
5. According to the applicants, they are holding the post in
the Kerala last grade service in the category of Watchmen in the Public Works Department in Palakkad District. They had entered service pursuant to the appointment order issued by R-2 in the OA [Chief Engineer (Administration) Public Works Department] on
27.5.2016 and 10.7.2017 respectively. The applicants had filed representation before the competent Departmental authorities concerned seeking that they should be appointed by category change by the method of appointment of transfer from the post of Watchmen to the post of Office Attendant (Peon) in accordance with the 4 th proviso to Rule 2 of the Special Rules governing the last grade service. At that point of time, their applications were rejected on the ground that their probation in the abovesaid post presently held by them was not by then declared. The said rejection order was by placing reliance on Anx. A8 G.O.(Ms).No.1/2018/P&ARD dated 27.1.2018 issued by the competent authority of the State Government in the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department (P&ARD). It is common ground that later probation of the abovesaid two petitioners/applicants were successfully declared by Anx.A-10 proceedings dated 12.4.2019 and Anx.A-11 proceedings dated 9.8.2019 respectively and w.e.f. 8.6.2017
OP(KAT)326/21 - : 6 :- in the case of the 1st applicant and 16.8.2018 in the case of the 2 nd applicant. After successful declaration of their probation, the applicants had again moved the authorities by filing Anx.A-16 dated 22.6.2020 and Anx. A-17 representation dated 24.6.2020 before the respondent Chief Engineer. Since no action was forthcoming, they were constrained to approach the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.971/ 2020 in which the Tribunal has rendered Anx. A-18 final order dated 10.7.2010, whereby the competent authority of the Department was directed to consider and take decision on the representations filed by the original applicants in relation to their claim for transfer appointments from the post of Watchmen to the post of Office attendants. Pursuant thereto, R-2 in the O.A. (Chief Engineer) has rejected those representations of the applicants by the impugned Anx. A-19 order 24.9.2020 on the ground that if Watchman/night Watchman, etc. are indiscriminately given transfer appointment to the post of Office Attendants, then consequential vacancies in the post of Watchman/ night watchman cannot be utilized for appointing woman candidates in PSC ranked list, etc. However, the new ground of rejection as per Anx. A-19 does not cite those grounds and main grounds cited therein are retirement vacancies in the post of Office Attendants shall be reported to the Public Service Commission and
OP(KAT)326/21 - : 7 :- not many of such vacancies can be utilized for transfer appointment of Watchman to the post of Office Attendants, as otherwise the rights and interests of candidates included in the PSC ranked list in respect of last grade service will be affected as and when vacancies by way of retirement, etc. arise in the post of Office Attendants, etc. In other words, the main ground is that only a few vacancies can be set apart for transfer appointment of incumbents holding the post of Watchman to the post of Office Attendants and that majority of the vacancies in the post of Office Attendants will have to be utilized for direct recruitment from the PSC ranked list, etc. It is this order at Anx A-19 rejection order that is essentially under challenge in the OA and the OP. The grounds of earlier rejection as per Anx.A-9 have become practically redundant and irrelevant in view of the issuance of Anx. A-19.
6. The Tribunal after hearing both sides has taken the view
that the abovesaid aspects canvassed by the Department that many of the vacancies in the post of Office Attendants cannot be utilized for by transfer appointments of Watchmen to the post of Office Attendants, etc. will have to be given due weightage and that it is for the appointing authority to set apart vacancies in various categories and sub categories through methods of appointment to the post of Office
OP(KAT)326/21 - : 8 :-
Attendants. Further it has been noted in Anx.A-19 rejection order
that the last incumbent in the post of Watchman, who was given by transfer appointment to the post of Office Attendant, was an incumbent, who had given valid application on 4.7.2016 in Palakkad District and thereby, presumably implies that the turn of the applicants to become qualified and eligible after successful declaration of the probation only much later, etc. Taking note of these aspects, the Tribunal, without issuing specific directions, has taken the view that it is for the competent authority of the State Government in the 6th respondent Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department to frame appropriate guidelines to regulate smooth process of dealing with the claims of transfer appointment of Watchman, etc. to the post of Office Attendants, etc. The impugned rejection orders at Anx.A-19 dated 24.9.2020 have not been quashed by the Tribunal.
7. We have heard both sides in extenso.
8. The statutory provisions, which govern the by
transfer/category change of last grade service incumbents holding the post of Watchman to the post of Office Attendants (Peon) is governed by the 4th proviso to Rule 2 of Special Rules of the Kerala Last Grade Service and the said provision including the operative portion of Rule OP(KAT)326/21 - : 9 :- 2 and the 4th proviso thereto, read as follows:
“Rule 2. Posts with different Designations.- For the purpose of appointment and promotion, probation and seniority, discharge for want of vacancies and reappointement, postings and transfers and appointment of full members, every post or group of posts which are on the same scale of pay and require only literary qualification and to which candidates are advised from a common ranked list, shall be treated as belonging to the same category: Provided..... ..... ...... Provided also that request made for category change on reasonable ground between the following posts in Category 4 shall be allowed if the applicant possesses the additional qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post, to which category change is requested subject to the condition that the applicant shall, in the post to which category change is allowed take rank as the junior most:”
The 4th proviso to Rule 2 mandates that the request made for category change on reasonable ground between the posts in Category 4 mentioned therein, shall be allowed if the applicant possesses the additional qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post, to which category change is requested subject to the condition that the applicant shall, in the post to which category change is allowed take rank as the junior most, etc. Hence a reading of the said provision would make it clear that the said rule is only enabling one and does not specifically envisage appropriate guidelines or criteria to be adopted by the appointing authority to regulate the claims for by transfer appointment as above. To a specific query as to whether any of the executive orders have been issued by the Government to regulate the criteria for appointment by category change from
OP(KAT)326/21 - : 10 :- Watchman to the Office Attendant, etc. more particularly in the category of Watchman to the post of Office Attendant (Peon) etc., both sides have not been able to pin point any executive orders in that regard. Hence this Court has to proceed on the premise that except the abovesaid statutory provision envisaged in 4 th proviso to Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the Last Grade Service, there are no specific
guidelines or norms or criteria fixed by the State Government either
by way of Government order or by Government circular, etc. so as to regulate the excise of discretion by the appointing authority in making such transfer appointments. The grounds cited by the Department regarding their difficulties cannot be brushed aside by this Court. However, that does not mean that the competent authority of the State Government should not take appropriate decision in the matter of framing of guidelines or norms to regulate the transfer appointment of incumbents like Watchman, etc. to the post of Office Attendant (Peon), etc.
9. The said process may obviously take time. However, the fact of the matter is that this is the second time that the applicants, who are holding last grade service post, to approach the Tribunal and they are also forced to approach this Court as well. The earlier ground of rejection was that their probation was not successfully OP(KAT)326/21 - : 11 :-
declared by then. Now it is common ground that by Anx.A10 order
dated 12.4.2019 and Anx. A-11 order dated 9.8.2019 the probation of the petitioners/applicants have been successfully declared by the competent authority of the Department on 8.6.2017 in the case of the 1st petitioner and on 17.8.2018 in the case of the 2 nd petitioner. Therefore, on and with effect from 8.6.2017 (1 st petitioner) and 17.8.2018 (2nd petitioner) both the petitioners have fully qualified and eligible to be considered for by transfer appointment from the post of Watchman to the post of Office Attendants (Peon). The requests of the petitioners should have been considered by the 2 nd respondent as and when their turn of the two petitioners have arisen for such transfer appointment, even by the present state of affairs. All what has been stated in the rejection orders at Anx. A-19 is that at that time, their turns have not arisen and similarly situated incumbent holding the post of Watchman, was given last appointment to a person, who had given the application on 4.7.2016. Thereafter, as and when, the turns of the two petitioners have arisen, the same should have been considered even going by the present state of affairs instead of rejecting it as per Anx. A-19 and asking the petitioners to wait indefinitely. Hence it is ordered that the impugned Anx.A-19 rejection order dated 24.9.2020 to the extent it rejects the claims of
OP(KAT)326/21 - : 12 :- the petitionerd, even after they became eligible and qualified from 8.6.2017 and 17.8.2018 respectively will stand set aside and quashed. Consequently, the applications dealt with in Anx.A-19 more particularly Anx. A-16 and Anx. A-17 will stand restored back to the file of the 2nd respondent Chief Engineer for consideration and decision afresh. The case of the two applicants should be considered as if they became eligible and qualified for such transfer appointment to the post of Office Attendant on and with effect from 8.6.2017 in the case of the 1st petitioner and 17.8.2018 in the case of the 2nd petitioner. As and when the turns of the applicants arise going by the seniority in their claims, the request of the petitioners for by transfer appointment should be considered and decision taken accordingly. In that regard, it is made clear that the claims of the petitioners should have been treated as valid one on and with effect from 8.6.2017 and 17.8.2018 respectively in the case of the two petitioners. This we say so, as in the rejection order as well as in the pleadings of the respondents they consider the applications of the qualified and eligible candidates from the date of submission of their applications.
10. Further it is also ordered that the competent authority of the 6th respondent State Government in the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department shall consider various aspects of
OP(KAT)326/21 - : 13 :- the matter and may take appropriate decision in the matter of framing of guidelines and norms for regulating the by transfer appointment to the post Office Attendant/Peon taking into account the various aspects governing the service as well as the nature of the duties and responsibilities to be discharged in each of the post and also various other aspects canvassed by the respondents, which have been dealt with by the Tribunal. The petitioners will also at liberty to furnish their representations in those matters to the 6 th respondent making out their versions as to the manner for consideration of the matter by 1st respondent. The competent authority of the 1 st respondent may take final decision in the abovesaid matter of framing of guidelines, without much preferably within a period of 6 months at any rate, an outer time limit of 8 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the abovesaid process of framing of guidelines shall not cite as a reason for delaying the consideration of the claims of the petitioners for by transfer appointment, which has to be done as and when their turns arise and treating their claims valid on and with effect from 8.6.2017 in the case of the 1st petitioner and 17.8.2018 in the case of the 2nd petitioner.
11. Sri.T.V.George, learned counsel appearing for the
OP(KAT)326/21 - : 14 :- petitioners submits that many of the juniors of the petitioners holding similar post of Watchman, etc. were given by transfer appointment to the post of Office Attendant (Peon) superseding the better and senior claims of the petitioners and the Tribunal as per Ext.P-4 interim
order dated 24.2.2021 in the instant O.A.(EKM) No. 1711/2021 had
directed that filling up of vacancies of Office Attendants will be subject to further orders in the OA, etc. It is asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that those incumbents are juniors to the petitioners going by the length of service and that it is also reliably learnt that those incumbents secured their probation much after the
declaration of probation the petitioners, etc. The learned Senior Govt. Pleader submits that those persons have not been made parties and he does not have factual instructions as to whose claims are better or superior and whether the said persons are juniors to the petitioners, etc. and that in the absence of pleadings in the OA, the respondents could not deal with those aspects in their reply statement, etc. Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Govt. Pleader is right in contending that there paucity of pleadings in that regard. However, in case the petitioners have any grievance in relation to the appointments of those persons, whose cases are dealt with in Ext.P-4 interim order dated 24.2.2021 rendered by the
OP(KAT)326/21 - : 15 :- Tribunal in the instant O.A., then the petitioners may give representations in that regard before the competent authority like the 2nd respondent in the O.A. and the details regarding the incumbents who have been given such appointments pursuant to Ext.P-4, etc. may be furnished to the petitioners by the competent authority, more particularly, regarding the date of initial appointment, the dates of postings, etc. and thereafter if the petitioners are satisfied that they have superior and senior claims over those incumbents, it is for the petitioners to further ventilate their grievances by giving appropriate representations before the competent authority and the said competent authority concerned may take decision on those aspects after hearing not only the petitioners but also such incumbents, who are affected by such process, without much delay, preferably within 6 weeks from the date of filing of such representations. It is made clear that we have not entered into the merits of the controversy in any manner regarding the pleas made by the petitioners regarding appointments given to other incumbents pursuant to Ext.P-4 interim
order and it is for the petitioners to collect all the relevant factual
materials and then to ventilate their grievances by filing appropriate representations before the competent authority and it is for the competent authority to take decision in the matter in accordance with OP(KAT)326/21 - : 16 :- law, after hearing both sides within a reasonable time of three to four months from the date of such detailed representation.
The orders and directions of the Tribunal at Ext.P-1 will stand modified as above. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE sdk+ OP(KAT)326/21 - : 17 :- APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 326/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER DATED
01.10.2021 IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 1711/2020 PASSED BY THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM). EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF O.A. (EKM) NO. 1711/2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM (ADDL. BENCH, ERNAKULAM). EXHIBIT P2(A1) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT -PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR CATEGORY NO. 567/2013 IN GAZETTE DATED 31.12.2013.
EXHIBIT P2(A2) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
BEARING NO. ED3/12162/2014 DATED 27.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P2(A3) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
BEARING NO. ED3/12162/2014 DATED 10.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND APPLICANT. EXHIBIT P2(A4) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 8.2.2017 IN PROPER FORM SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A5) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.9.2019 IN PROPER FORM SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A6) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER
NO. E1-49/2014 (1) DATED 14.3.2017 FORWARDED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD BUILDING DIVISION, PALAKKAD TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. OP(KAT)326/21 - : 18 :- EXHIBIT P2(A7) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER NO. C1-9/2019 DATED 25.9.2017 FORWARDED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS, PALAKKAD TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P2(A8) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF G.O(MS) NO. 1/2018/P & ARD DATED 27.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A9) A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 04M1/18394/2016 DATED 1.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A10) ED3/8454/2019(2) DATED 12.4.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P2(A11) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROBATION ORDER
NO. ED3/13913/2019 (2) DATED 9.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND APPLICANT. EXHIBIT P2(A12) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER (FOR THE 1ST APPLICANT) NO. A1/2289/2019 DATED 17.6.2019 FORWARDED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PALAKKADTO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A13) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ED3/5071/2014
(1) DATED 9.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A14) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ED3/6071/2014(1) DTD 18.6.2020 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A15) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ED1/4131/2017 DATED 24.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A16) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.6.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A17) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.6.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A18) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2020 IN O.A.(EKM) NO. 971/2020 OF KAT (ERNAKULAM BENCH). OP(KAT)326/21 - : 19 :- EXHIBIT P2 (A19) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. ED3/12059/2020 DATED 24.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A20) A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. ADV. C3/116/2020/P&ARD DATED 12.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(M.A) A TRUE COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION TO JOIN TOGETHER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.2.2021 IN O.P(KAT) NO. 53/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED
24.02.2021 IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 1711/2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM (ADDITIONAL BENCH) ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 1.3.2021 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2021 IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 1711/2020 BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM (ADDITIONAL BENCH) ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER STATEMENT IN O.A.
(EKM) NO. 1711/2020 DATED 12.3.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM (ADDITIONAL BENCH) ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 12.8.2021 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 1711/2020 BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM ADDL. BENCH, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SPECIAL RULES FOR KERALA LAST GRADE SERVICES.