Kerala High Court
Kerala Public Service Commission vs Praveen R.V on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
OP(KAT) NO. 369 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM)NO.115/2016 DATED 23.05.2017 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN OA:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE FISHERIES & PORT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA-695001.
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER
HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, KAMALESWARAM,
MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695009.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IN OA:
1 PRAVEEN R.V
OVERSEER GR.II, HARBOUR ENGINEERING, SUB DIVISION,
ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-691001, RESIDING AT CHITHRA, VAZHUTHUR,
NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695121.
2 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PSC OFFICE, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695004.
3 LIJIMOL. K. JOY
KUNNATHU HOUSE, THRIKKALATHOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM,
KERALA-683557.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
SRI.V.P.PRASAD
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.07.2021, ALONG WITH OP(KAT)NO.450/2017, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P (KAT) Nos.450 & 369/2017 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
OP(KAT) NO. 450 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM)NO.115/2016 DATED 23.05.2017 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT:
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, -695 004.
BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS 1,2 & 4:
1 PRAVEEN R.V
OVERSEER GR.II, HARBOUR ENGINEERING, SUB DIVSION,
ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-691 001, RESIDING AT CHITHRA,
VAZHUTHUR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN-695 121.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE FISHERIES AND PORT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM,
KERALA-695 001.
3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER
HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, KAMALESWARAM,
MANACUAD P.O.,THIRUVANANTHPAURAM, KERALA-695 009.
4 LIJIMOL K JOY
KUNNATH HOUSE, THRIKKALATHOOR, THRIKKALATHOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA,PIN-683 557.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU
SRI.V.P.PRASAD
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.07.2021, ALONG WITH OP(KAT)No.369/2017, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P (KAT) Nos.450 & 369/2017 3
(CR)
ALEXANDER THOMAS & A. BADHARUDEEN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------------
O.P (KAT) Nos.450 of 2017 & 369 of 2017
[arising out of the impugned final order dated 23.05.2017
in O.A. (Ekm) No.115/2016 on the file of the KAT, EKM Bench]
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2021
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
Both these original petitions arise out of the final order dated
23.05.2017 rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.
(Ekm) No.115/2016. Since the matter arises out of the same impugned
verdict of the Tribunal, these cases are disposed of on the basis of this
common judgment.
2. O.P.(KAT) No.450/2017 is filed by the Kerala Public Service
Commission (R3 in the O.A.) and O.P.(KAT) No.369/2017 is filed by the
State of Kerala & the department concerned (respondents 1 & 2 in the
O.A.). O.P.(KAT) No.450/2017, filed by the Kerala Public Service
Commission, is taken as the lead case. The annexures and exhibits
referred to in this judgment will be with reference to the documents as
produced in O.P.(KAT) No.450/2017, unless specifically indicated
otherwise.
3. The prayers in O.P.(KAT) No.450/2017 filed by the Kerala
Public Service Commission, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India are as follows [see page No.9 of O.P.(KAT) No.450/2017]:-
"(i) To set aside Exhibit P4 order in O.A. (EKM) No.115 of 2016 of
the Honourable Kerala Administrative Tribunal and thereby
dismiss the O.A.
and
(ii) To issue such other writ, order or direction as this
Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
this case."
4. The prayers in O.P.(KAT) No.369/2017 filed by the State of
Kerala and the department concerned, under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India are as follows [see page No.6 of O.P.(KAT)
No.369/2017]:-
".................to set aside the order in OA (Ekm) No.115/2016 dated
23.05.2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Kerala Administrative Tribunal
by allowing this Original Petition (KAT)."
5. The prayers in the instant Ext.P1 original application, O.A.
(Ekm) No.115/2016, filed by the 1st respondent herein (original
applicant) are as follows [see page Nos.23 & 24 of the paper book in O.P.
(KAT) No.450/2017]:-
"i) issue an order directing the 3 rd respondent to advise the
applicant to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the vacancy in
the departmental quota in place of the 4th respondent;
ii) issue an order setting aside the appointment of the 4 th
respondent against the vacancy in the departmental quota;
iii) issue an order directing the 1 st respondent to issue an order
directing the 2nd respondent to appoint the applicant to the post of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the departmental quota and giving
him seniority from the date of occurrence of the vacancy.
iv) issue an order directing the 2nd respondent to appoint the
applicant to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the
departmental quota giving him seniority from the date of
occurrence of the vacancy;
v) to issue such other appropriate order or direction as this
Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to issue in the facts and
circumstances of the case; and
vi) to grant the costs of this application."
6. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the
impugned Ext.P4 final order dated 23.05.2017 in O.A. (Ekm)
No.115/2016 whereby it was held that the applicant's
provisional/temporary service should also be counted for determining as
to whether he has the minimum requisite 6 years of service for being
considered for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) in the Harbour Engineering Department of the State
Government in the departmental quota, in terms of the selection
notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission and that the
rejection of his candidature in the departmental quota is illegal and that
he should be included in Anx.A8 ranked list and consequential directions
for reporting of vacancies, advice and appointment have also to be given
therein, etc.
7. The 1st respondent herein/original applicant had applied for
selection and appointment in pursuance of Anx.A5 selection notification
dated 30.11.2020, issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission for
the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Harbour Engineering
Department, in the departmental quota (Category No.367/2010 of
Anx.A5). The above said departmental quota is set apart for staff of the
Harbour Engineering Department who have not less than 6 years of
service and who possess the qualifications prescribed for direct
recruitment to the said post of Assistant Engineer, etc. There is no
dispute that the applicant has possessed the prescribed academic
qualifications stipulated for being considered in the departmental quota.
The candidature of the applicant was rejected by the Kerala Public
Service Commission, on the ground that the petitioner does not have 6
years of regular service in the Harbour Engineering Department and that
the departmental quota is set apart exclusively for staff of the Harbour
Engineering Department and since it is stipulated that they should have
not less than 6 years of service, it is mandatory that the departmental
quota candidates should have not less than 6 years of regular service in
the department.
8. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal as per the impugned
Ext.P4 final order dated 23.05.2017 in the instant O.A.(Ekm)
No.115/2016 has accepted the contentions of the applicant and has held
that nowhere it is stipulated in the selection notification and the Rules
that the said 6 years should necessarily be 6 years of regular service and
that the provisional/temporary service possessed by the applicant should
have been taken into account by the Kerala Public Service Commission
and that the applicant has given the details of not only his regular service
but also his provisional/temporary service. Hence the Tribunal as per
Ext.P4 final order held that the exclusion of the applicant's candidature
by the Kerala Public Service Commission is illegal and accordingly
directed that he should be included in Anx.A8 ranked list and certain
consequential directions for advice and appointment have also been
given.
9. Sri.P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala
Public Service Commission and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior
Government Pleader, appearing for the State Government and the
department would strongly contend that the Tribunal has egregiously
erred in holding that even provisional/temporary service should be taken
into account and that in the instant case the notifications and the Rules
make it clear like the day light that the quota to which the applicant had
applied is departmental quota which is set apart for staff in the Harbour
Engineering department and that therefore the prescribed 6 years
service can only be 6 years regular service as an Engineering staff in the
Harbour Engineering department and that indisputably the applicant
has not completed 6 years of regular service in the department as on
05.01.2011 (last date of submission of application in terms of Anx.A5
selection notification dated 30.11.2020), etc.
10. Per contra Sri.Rajesh K. Raju, learned counsel appearing for
the 1st respondent herein/the original applicant, would contend that the
matter in issue is squarely covered in favour of the original applicant as
per the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case in
K. K. Marakkar Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission [1987
(1) KLT 84] and other decisions of this Court as in Bhaskaran Vs.
State of Kerala [1981 KLT 633], Purushothaman Thampi Vs.
Director Training [1988 (1) KLT SN.2 (case No.4)], etc. In the
decision in K.K. Marakkar's case (supra) the Division Bench of this
Court has dealt with the selection to the post of Assistant Engineers
(Civil) in the Public Works Department, wherein one of the stipulations
in the selection notification was that 1 st and 2nd grade
overseers/draftsmen, who have not less than 2 years of service in the
Public Works Department were eligible to apply for the post. The
candidature of the petitioner therein was rejected and the Public Service
Commission has taken the stand that he does not have the requisite 2
years of service firstly on the ground that the service relied upon by him
is not continuous and secondly that the service rendered by him as a
provisional employee cannot be treated as regular service and implying
thereby that only regular service can be reckoned. Paragraph No.3 of the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K.K. Marakkar's case
(supra) would indicate that the relevant portion of 1st proviso to Note (3)
to Rule 3 of the Special Rules for the Kerala Engineering Subordinate
Service (General Branch) stipulated as follows:-
".......That in the case of First and Second grade
Draftsmen/Overseers they should have rendered not less than two
years service as First and Second grade Overseers ....."
11. The Division Bench of this Court has held that the said Rule
does not expressly require that the service should be continuous and
further that the said Rule does not either explicitly or impliedly stipulate
that the service should be regular and not provisional or temporary.
Accordingly it was held that the broken provisional/temporary service of
the incumbent therein should be reckoned for the purpose of the
abovesaid regular selection concerned in that case.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the original applicant
would point out that this Court in Bhaskaran's case (supra) has held
that the word 'service' takes in all kinds of service and that 'unless
qualifying service is specifically denoted as either regular service or
officiating service, the officer claiming promotion will be entitled to
count both, when the word used is only service' as the word 'service'
without any qualification means service of any kind. Further it is also
pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court in Purushothaman
Thampi's case (supra) has held that the word 'service' by itself without
any qualification means "service of all kind". On this basis Sri.Rajesh
K.Raju, learned counsel appearing for the original applicant would
strongly contend that the view rendered by the Tribunal is legally correct
and does not warrant any interdiction.
13. Both the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public
Service Commission and the learned Senior Government Pleader would
also contend on the basis of various provisions regarding the definition
of "service" as contained in KS & SSR and also that a provisional
employee is not a "member of service" defined under the Rule. In that
regard, they would pointedly draw this Court's attention to the definition
of "service" as contained in Rule 2(15) of KS & SSR Part-I. Rule 2(15) of
KS & SSR Part-I defines service as "a group of persons classified by the
State Government as a State or Subordinate Service, as the case may
be". The Note thereunder provide that where the context so require
'service' means period during which a person holds a post or a lien on a
post or is a member of a service as above defined. Further that, Rule
2(9) of KS & SSR, Part-I would define 'member of a service' means "a
person who has been appointed to that service and who has not retired
or resigned, been removed or dismissed, been substantively transferred
or reduced to another service, or been discharged otherwise than for
want of a vacancy. He may be a probationer, an approved probationer
or a full member of that service." They would also invite this Court's
attention to the Rules that governs the service in relation to the post in
question, which is at Anx.A10 category No.5 and Note 2 thereunder
stipulates that out of that 60% be filled up by direct recruitment, 54 %
shall be filled up by candidate from the open market and the remaining
6% shall be filled up by candidate from the staff of Harbour Engineering
Department, having not less than 6 years of service and who have
possessed the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment in the
category of Assistant Engineer/Head draftsmen, etc.
14. On the basis of the above said provisions in the KS & SSR and
the Special Rules, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public
Service Commission and the learned Senior Government Pleader
appearing for the Government would strongly contend that the word
'service' appearing in the selection notification and in the Rules will have
to be understood in the context of the Special Rules that govern the field
and also in the light of the definition in the General Rules and that the
Rules mandate that 6% is to be set apart for the departmental staff of the
Harbour Engineering Department, having not less than 6 years of service
and who possessed the prescribed qualification and therefore, it is clear
that the statutory mandate of the Rule making authority is that the
candidate should have not less than 6 years of regular service as
understood in the abovesaid provisions. In that regard they would
pointedly urge that a provisional/temporary employee covered in terms
of Rule 9(a)(i) of KS & SSR, Part-II cannot be said to be a "member of
service" as understood in Rule 2(9) of KS & SSR, Part-I.
15. After hearing both sides, we are of the firm view that there is
no necessity for us to resolve the abovesaid rival contentions of both
sides as to whether the word 'service' as appearing in Anx.A5 selection
notification and Anx.A10 Rules would take in only regular service as
contended by the petitioners herein or would also take in provisional
service/temporary service apart from regular service as contended by the
original applicant/1st respondent herein. Based on the admitted factual
pleadings of the original applicant we are of the view that even if it is
assumed that temporary/provisional service of the applicant would also
be taken into account along with his regular service, still he does not
have the requisite 6 years of service as on 05.01.2011 (last date of
submission of application in pursuance of Anx.A5 selection notification
dated 30.11.2020). One of the prime requirements of the general
conditions of the selection process stipulated by the Kerala Public
Service Commission is that the eligibility conditions and qualifications
should be possessed by the candidate as on the last date of submission of
applications. The only exception in that regard is regarding the age limit
which as per the Rules governing the field is to be evaluated as on the
first day of January of the year in which the selection notification is
issued. In the instant case, it is common ground that the last date of
submission of application in pursuance of Anx.A5 selection notification
was 05.01.2011 .
16. Going by the pleadings of the original applicant, the
experience claimed by him is as follows:-
"
Sl. Period of Service Designation Station/
No. Department
1. 11-11-1993 to 10-11-1994 Apprentice Irrigation
(1 year) Trainee Department
2. From 23-07-2001 to 6 months Assistant Kerala Water
(6 months) Engineer Authority
(Provisional)
3. 23-11-2005 to 18-04-2006 Assistant Harbour
(147 days) Engineer Engineering
(Provisional) Department
4. 19-04-2006 to 30-11-2010 Tracer Overseer/
(4 years 226 days) Draughtsman
Gr.II
"
The above said details are given in the tabular column provided in
paragraph No.9 of O.P.(KAT) No.450/2017, filed by the Kerala Public
Service Commission.
17. We have specifically requested Sri.Rajesh K. Raju, learned
counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein/original applicant as to
whether the factual particulars shown therein are correct and as to
whether the claimed service period of the applicant is also inclusive not
only of provisional/temporary service and regular service but also his
period as apprentice trainee. We have also pointedly requested him to
get instructions from his party as to whether if the apprentice period is
excluded, he would have the minimum 6 years service as on 05.01.2011
even if provisional/temporary service as well as regular service is
counted.
18. On the previous occasion we were appraised by the learned
counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein/original applicant based
on the instructions of his party that if Sl. No.1 of the above tabular
column is excluded therein the original applicant will have only 5 years 7
months and 13 days of service as on 05.01.2011, which is inclusive of his
provisional/temporary service in the Kerala Water Authority, Harbour
Engineering Department as well as his regular service in the Harbour
Engineering Department.
19. So, the issue to be decided by us is as to whether the
apprentice trainee period of the applicant is to be taken into account. In
that regard Sri.Rajesh K. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent herein would submit that Rule 15 of Part III KSR would
make it clear that even apprentice trainee period is to be taken into
account. Rule 15 of Part-III KSR provides as follows:-
" Rule 15. Apprentices and probationers - services as an apprentice
does not qualify except in the following case:- (i) Engineer
apprentices in the Public Works Department (ii) Apprentice
compositors in the Government Press."
20. In that regard it is pointed out on behalf of the original
applicant that he has been engaged as apprentice trainee for one year for
the period from 11.11.1993 to 10.11.1994 in the Irrigation department.
That, the provision in Rule 15 of Part-III KSR speaks about Public Works
Department which was later bifurcated as the Public Works Department
and the Irrigation Department and therefore the apprentice trainee
period in the Irrigation Department should also qualify as service in
terms of Rule 15 of Part-III KSR. In that regard it has to be borne in
mind that the abovesaid Rule 15 is contained in Part-III of KSR which
mainly regulates aspects regarding grant of pension.
21. The operative portion of Rule 10 (ab) & Rule 10(abb) of KS &
SSR Part-II and its proviso read as follows:-
"Rule 10(ab): Where the Special Rules or Recruitment Rules
for a post in any service prescribe qualification of experience, it
shall, unless otherwise specified, be one gained by persons on
temporary or regular appointment in capacities other than paid or
unpaid apprentices, trainees and Casual Labourers in Central or
State Government Service or in Public Sector Undertaking or
Registered Private Sector Undertaking, after acquiring the basic
qualification prescribed for the post...;
Provided that the experience gained as factory workers on
daily wages of a permanent nature may be accepted, if the service is
continuous and not of a casual nature."
Rule 10(abb): Experience for 179 days gained through temporary
appointments under rule 9(a)(i) in Departments under Government
or Government/quasi Government Institutions or Public Sector
Undertakings shall be considered as experience therein for six
months for appointment to posts for which qualification of
experience for not less than six months is prescribed."
22. The learned counsel appearing for the original applicant has
got a contention that even Rule 10(ab) would clearly provide that
experience gained in temporary/regular appointments could also be
taken into account.
23. Per contra, it is contended by the other side that the special
Rules would clearly indicate otherwise and that therefore the said
provisions of the Special Rules would mandate that the experience
required should be 6 year regular service.
24. Further it is pointed out by the petitioners herein that even if
temporary/provisional appointment is acceptable in terms of Rule
10(ab) of KS &SSR, Part-II, going by the provisions of the Special Rules
any such service should be in the parent department itself viz., Harbour
Engineering Department and that in the instant case, the applicant has
also claimed temporary/ provisional service in Kerala Water Authority,
which is not acceptable.
25. It is also common ground that the abovesaid provision
contained in the operative portion of Rule 10 (ab) is explicitly
incorporated as one of the clauses in the general conditions of the
selection process notified by the Public Service Commission at the time
of issuance of the instant Anx.A5 selection notification. Rule 10(ab) and
the corresponding provision in the notification regarding general
conditions of the selection clearly stipulate that where the Special Rules
or Recruitment Rules for a post in any service, prescribed qualification
experience, it shall unless otherwise specified be gained by persons on
temporary/regular appointment in capacities other than paid or unpaid
apprentices, trainees and Casual Labourers in Central or State
Government Service etc. after acquiring the basic qualifications
prescribed for that post. Hence, the abovesaid statutory Rules clearly
mandate that paid or unpaid apprentice period cannot be taken into
account for reckoning experience.
26. Therefore, even if we hold that the temporary/provisional
appointment of the applicant is to be reckoned, there cannot be any
dispute that the period of paid or unpaid apprentices cannot be taken
into account for reckoning the requisite experience or service for the
selection in question. If the abovesaid apprentice period of the applicant
is excluded, then indisputably he has only 5 years 7 months and 13 days
as on 05.01.2011, taking into account his provisional/temporary service
and regular service. This crucial aspect of this matter has not been taken
into account by the Tribunal while rendering the impugned verdict.
There is no necessity for us to examine as to whether the mandate of the
Special Rules would require that 6 year regular service alone can be
taken into account and whether such 6 year regular service should be
only in the Harbour Engineering Department, etc. as contended by the
Public Service Commission and State. All such issues are left open to be
raised and decided in appropriate proceedings, in the manner known to
law.
27. Sri. Rajesh K. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent/original applicant would point out that the applicant has
submitted Ext.R1(e) representation dated 18.05.2019 before the
competent authority of the State Government in the Fisheries and Port
Department (administrative department concerned) praying that
Government may invoke the powers under Rule 39 of Part-II KS & SSR,
so as to grant him appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil)
in the Harbour Engineering Department and that in that regard the Chief
Engineer of the Harbour Engineering Department has already submitted
Anx.R1(c) letter dated 25.04.2015 recommending to the State
Government that the case of the applicant in that regard may be
considered.
28. Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader
would submit that he has no factual instructions on those aspects, as
these are not matters which would fall within the range of the main
issues raised in these petitions.
29. In the light of the above aspects, we are constrained to come
to the conclusion that as the original applicant does not have the
requisite 6 years of service as on 05.01.2011 (last date of submission of
the application) his candidature has been rightly rejected by the Public
Service Commission. The contra findings of the Tribunal that he is
eligible and entitled for selection, etc. are legally wrong. Hence, it is
ordered that the impugned Ext.P4 final order dated 23.05.2017 rendered
by the Tribunal in O.A. (Ekm) No.115/2016 will stand set aside and
consequently the said O.A. will stand dismissed.
30. We make it clear that nothing in this judgment will legally
preclude the original applicant from pursuing any such representation
referred to in Anx.R1(c) before the competent authority of the State
Government, in accordance with law.
With these observations and directions the above original petitions
will stand finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN,
JUDGE
Skk//26062021
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 450/2017
PETITIONER ANNEXURE:-
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM)NO.115/2016 WITH
ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
18/11/1994 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHANNEL SUB DIVISION,
NEYYATTINKARA.
ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 17/1/2002
ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
IPD SUB DIVISION KERALA WATER AUTHORITY.
ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.122/95/EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER DATED 18/4/2006 OF THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER VIZHINJAM FISHERIES HARBOUR
PROJECT DIVISION.
ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2-3257/06/CE
DATED 15/6/2006 OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF
ENGINEER HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 30/11/2010
FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL)
IN THE HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST FOR THE POST
OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL) IN THE
HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT UNDER
DEPARTMENTAL QUOTA DATED 10/06/2013.
ANNEXURE A7: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14/6/2013 SENT
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE A8: TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST OF SELECTED
CANDIDATES FOR THE POST ASSISTANT ENGINEER
(CIVIL) IN THE HARBOUR ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT UNDER THE DEPARTMENT QUOTA.
ANNEXURE A9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/11/2015
SENT BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE KERALA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE SECRETARY
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION.
ANNEXURE A10: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE KERALA
HARBOUR ENGINEERING SERVICE (CIVIL BRANCH)
RULES 1995.
ANNEXURE A11: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16/2/2015.
ANNEXURE A12: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.5342/D2/2015/FPD
DATED 28/5/2015 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A13: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19/08/2015
SENT BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE A14: TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART NO.RIA (1)
14230/13/GW DATED 04/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION
DATED 2/8/2016 WITH ANNEXURE FILED BY THE
APPELLANT.
ANNEXURE A15: TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER NO.E1-17-
2013/ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DATED
7/7/2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING SUB
DIVISION, THANKASSERY, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION
DATED 15/8/2016 WITH ANNEXURE FILED BY THE
APPELLANT.
ANNEXURE MA1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
11/07/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO
THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN
THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE MA2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A6/5907/2016/CE
DATED 10/08/2016 SENT BY THE STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) 115/2016 DATED
23/5/2017.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT R1(A) THE TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO.8/95/F&PD,
DATED 04.02.1995
EXHIBIT R1(B) THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.IDS I(I)6087/
15/GW/APPEAL DATED 17.11.2015 OF APPELLATE
ATHORITY (RTI) KPSC,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT R1(C) THE TRUE COPY OF CHIEF ENGINEER;S LETTER
NO.B2/1952/15/CE DATED 25.04.2015
ADDRESSED TO PRINCIPAL SECRETARY F&P
DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT R1(D) THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER
NO.5342/D2/2015/F&PD DATED 28.05.2015
EXHIBIT R1(E) THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
18.05.2018 OF THIRD RESPONDENT (PRAVEEN
R.V.)ADDRESSED TO THE PRINCIPALSECRETARY
TO GOV.FISHERIES& PORT DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT R1(F) THE TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED
18.05.2018 FOR SENDING OF EXHIBIT R1(E) BY
SPEED POST.
EXHIBIT R1 (G) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION OF KPSC
PUBLISHING RANKED LIST NO-327/19 SSVI- CAT
NO 218/2017 FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT
ENGINEER (CIVIL) IN HARBOUR ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT.
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 369/2017
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
18.11.1994 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER,CHANNEL SUBDIVISION, NEYYATTINKARA.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THGE CERTIFICATE DATED
17.01.2002 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER IPD SUB DIVISION,KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.122/95/EE DATED
18.04.2006 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
VIZHINJAM FISHERIES HARBOUR PROJECT
DIVISION.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE CPOY OF ORDER NO.C2-3257/06/CE DATEAD
15.06.2006 OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENEINGEER,
HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPRTMENT
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 30.11.2010
FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL)IN
THE HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST FOR THE POST OF
ASSISTANT ENGINERER(CIVIL)IN THE HARBOIUR
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT UNDER DEPARTMENT
QUOTA DATED 10.06.2013
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.06.2013 SENT BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST OF SELECTED
CANDIDATES FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT
ENGINEER(CIVIL)IN THE HARBOUR ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT UNDER THE DEPARTMENT QUOTA.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.11.2015
SENT BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE KERALA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE SECRETARY,
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE KERAL
HARBOUR ENGINEERING SERVICE (CIVIL
BRANCH)RULES 1995.
ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16.02.2015
ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.5342/D2/2015/FPD
DATED 28.05.2015 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.08.2015 SENT
BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN
THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART
NO.RIA(1)14230/13/GW DATED 04.03.2014 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT,APPLICATION TO ACCEPT
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT IN OA 415/2016
ANNEXURE MA1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
11.07.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE
STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE
OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE MA2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A6/5907/2016/CE
DATED 10/08/2016 SENT BY THE STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-05-2017 IN
OA(EKM) 115/2016 OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/05/2017 IN
OA (EKM) 115/2016 OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
