Kerala High Court
Baby Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 26 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 4TH ASWINA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 40032 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
HASHMI KUTTAN M
AGED 31 YEARS
W/O VIGIN M S., ACCREDITED OVERSEER,
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE
SCHEME, KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT KALADY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT MADASSERY HOUSE, MHC MATTOOR,
KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574
BY ADVS.
N.ANAND
RAJESH O.N.
BIJITH S.KHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS (RURAL) SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 MISSION DIRECTOR
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE
SCHEME, 3RD FLOOR, REVENUE COMPLEX,
PUBLIC OFFICE COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
3 JOINT PROGRAME CO-ORDINATOR
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANADU ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
4 BLOCK PROGRAME OFFICER
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
40032 of 2022 2
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME, BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICE,
ALAMEN P.O., ANGAMALY, PIN - 683572
5 KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
KALADY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683574
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
6 BABY THOMAS
W/O. THOMAS, KOLLAMKUDY HOUSE, THOTTAKAM,
MANIKAMANGALAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683574
BY ADVS.
SRI. JIMMY GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.WILSON URMESE, SC
SRI.DINESH MATHEW J MURIKAN
SRI. K.A.ABHILASH(K/123/2008)
SRI.VINOD S. PILLAI(K/631/2012)
SRI. MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.(K/1451/2019)
ADV.NAYANA VARGHESE(K/283/2021)
SRI.AHAMMAD SACHIN K.(K/001814/2019)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.09.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).41371/2022, 42099/2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
40032 of 2022 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 4TH ASWINA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 41371 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
KALADY P.O., PIN - 683574,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
LIJO AUGUSTINE.
BY ADVS.
WILSON URMESE
MANU HORMIS WILSON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
(RURAL), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O.,
PIN - 695001.
2 MISSION DIRECTOR
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE
SCHEME, 3RD FLOOR, REVENUE COMPLEX, PUBLIC OFFICE
COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., PIN - 695033
3 JOINT PROGRAM COORDINATOR
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE
SCHEME, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O., PIN - 682030,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4 BLOCK PROGRAM OFFICER
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
40032 of 2022 4
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE
SCHEME, ANGAMALY P.O., PIN - 683572,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
5 BABY THOMAS
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O THOMAS, THOTTAKAM, MANICKAMANGALAM P.O.,
PIN - 683574, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SRI.JIMMY GEORGE, GP
DINESH MATHEW J MURIKAN
K.A.ABHILASH(K/123/2008)
VINOD S. PILLAI(K/631/2012)
MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.(K/1451/2019)
NAYANA VARGHESE(K/283/2021)
AHAMMAD SACHIN K.(K/001814/2019)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.09.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.40032/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
40032 of 2022 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 4TH ASWINA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 42099 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
BABY THOMAS,
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O. THOMAS, KOLLAMKUDY HOUSE, THOTTAKAM,
MANIKAMANGALAM.P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-683574.
BY ADVS.
DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
K.A.ABHILASH
VINOD S. PILLAI
MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.
NAYANA VARGHESE
AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
STATUTE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GENERAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695001.
2 THE MISSION DIRECTOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE
SCHEME, 3RD FLOOR, REVENUE COMPLEX, PUBLIC OFFICE
COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
40032 of 2022 6
OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
CIVIL STATION.P.O, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682030.
4 KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KALADY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-683574, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5 THE SECRETARY, KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KALADY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683574.
6 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (LSGD)
KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KALADY.P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683574.
7 BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER, ANGAMALY,
ANGAMALY BLOCK PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
ANGAMALY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 572.
8 JOINT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR,
POVERTY ALLEVIATION UNIT, 3RD FLOOR,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN-682030.
BY SRI. JIMMY GEORGE, GP
SRI.WILSON URMESE, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.09.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.40032/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
40032 of 2022 7
JUDGMENT
Baby Thomas, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.42099 of 2022, had
functioned as an Overseer under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREG) in Kalady Grama Panchayat. She
has filed the writ petition challenging the inaction of the Secretary, Kalady
Grama Panchayat, in renewing the contract for a further period of two years.
She has also sought a direction to the 5th respondent to implement the
directions in Ext.P15 order issued by the 8th respondent.
2. W.P.(C) No.41371 of 2022 is filed by the Kalady Grama Panchayat
challenging Exts.P7 Circular dated 29.7.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent.
The Panchayat has also challenged the re-assessment of the appraisal score
by the Block Program Officer (BPO) and also Ext.P8 letter issued by the 3rd
respondent to act in terms of Ext.P7. They have also sought a declaration
that the 5th respondent is not entitled to continue as Overseer in the Kalady
Grama Panchayat.
3. W.P.(C) No.40032 of 2022 is filed by Smt. Hashmi Kuttan M, a
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
person who was appointed in the place of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.42099
of 2022. She has approached this court seeking to quash Ext.P13 circular and
Ext.P14 order and for further direction to the Kalady Panchayat to continue
the petitioner's service as an Accredited Overseer.
4. As common issues are involved, these writ petitions are considered
and disposed of by a common judgment. The parties shall be described as
stated in W.P.(C) No.42099 of 2022 and shall be referred by their names for
clarity.
5. Short facts are as under:
The Central Government had enacted the Mahatma Gandhi National
Rural Employment Guarantee Act to ensure 100 working days for two family
members in a year. Smt.Baby Thomas was appointed as an Accredited
Overseer in the 4th respondent Panchayat on 1.6.2012. The appointment
was initially for a period of one year and thereafter was extended from time
to time. Her tenure expired on 31.5.2022. While so, the Government came
out with Ext.P4 order, as per which a decision was taken to extend the period
of contract employees under the MGNREGA Scheme for a period of two years
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
after conducting a performance appraisal. Consequently, Ext.P5 Circular was
issued by which the contract employees who secured a score of more than
55% were entitled to renewal of employment contract for a period of two
years. The performance appraisal was to be carried out by the Panchayat
President, the Panchayat Secretary, the Assistant Engineer (LSGD), and the
Block Programme Officer. During the performance appraisal that was carried
out, Smt. Baby Thomas secured 38.07% marks. As the marks secured were
less than the minimum score prescribed by the Mission Director, she was not
granted an extension of the contract. In other words, her tenure expired on
31.5.2022. While so, the Mission Director came out with Ext.P6 Circular, as
per which the required score for extension of the contract was lowered to
40% score in the performance appraisal.
6. Immediately thereafter, the Panchayat conducted a fresh
selection to fill up the post of Overseer, and after following the procedure,
Smt. Hashmi Kuttan was appointed to the post on 27.10.2022.
7. Complaining that Smt. Baby Thomas was victimized, and low
marks were given to her on account of her husband filing a complaint against
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
the panchayat, she approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.31650/2022.
The prayer of the petitioner was that she had preferred a representation
before the State Mission, and her request was for consideration of the same.
The learned Government Pleader submitted that her representation would be
considered by the Joint Programme Co-ordinator (JPC), Ernakulam, and based
on the submissions, directions were issued to the JPC to consider and take a
decision by judgment dated 14.10.2022. It was made clear that an
appointment made pursuant to Ext.P12 would be provisional.
8. On the cover of the directions issued by this Court, the JPC
heard the parties on 16.11.2022 and thereafter directed the Block Programme
Officer (BPO) to re-evaluate the score. The BPO, on the strength of the
directions issued, reworked the marks and came to the conclusion that Smt.
Baby Thomas ought to have been awarded 54.14% of marks. After awarding
marks as aforesaid, directions were issued to the Panchat to renew the
contract of the petitioner as an Overseer under the Scheme. The grievance of
Smt. Baby Thomas is that the Panchayat is refusing to implement the
directions issued by the JPC.
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
9. Sri. Dinesh Mathew Murickan, the learned counsel, submitted
that the performance appraisal was wrongly done by the committee as they
had an axe to grind against the petitioner. Her husband had lodged a
complaint against the panchayat for tendering certain works to favour certain
individuals. It is in the afore circumstances that the Secretary as well as the
Assistant Engineer had intentionally given the petitioner low marks. The BPO
had re-evaluated the marks in the light of the orders and circulars issued by
the authorities and granted the petitioner 54.14% of marks. It is further
submitted that this Court had made it clear that the appointment of Smt.
Hashmi Kuttan would be provisional and subject to the score to be obtained
by the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondents 4 and 5 are bound
to comply with the directions issued by the 8th respondent and grant an
appointment to the petitioner.
10. Sri. Wilson Urmese, the learned counsel appearing for the
Panchayat, submitted that this Court had directed the JPC to consider the
representation and take a decision. Instead of complying with the directions,
the JPC had directed the BPO to re-evaluate the score. This, according to
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
the learned counsel, is not in tune with the directions issued by this Court.
The learned counsel would point out that the BPO, without any idea as to the
work done by Smt. Baby Thomas has reworked the marks without any
rationale. He would point out that the BPO has simply decided that the marks
awarded by the Secretary, President, and the AE for various activities carried
out by Smt. Baby Thomas was on the lower side and proceeded to grant her
full marks for the said activity. The learned counsel would urge that by
issuing circulars and orders diluting the minimum marks to be obtained during
a performance appraisal, the respondents 2, 7, and 8 have nullified the
independence of the Panchayat Raj Institutions and have encroached upon
their powers.
11. Sri. Anand, the learned counsel, has supported the submissions
of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat. He would point
out that neither the JPC nor the BPO has been conferred with the authority to
act as an appellate authority and determine the score that ought to have
been granted to Smt. Baby Thomas. Only the members of the Committee
could have appraised the score that was to be awarded to the Overseer. He
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
would point out that a mere perusal of the score awarded by the BPO for
maintaining the 'M' Book would reveal how faulty the determination of the
score was.
12. Sri. Jimmy George, the learned Government Pleader, submitted
that though it would appear that the BPO had evaluated the score, the fact
remains that in terms of the directions issued by this Court, the JPC had
heard the parties on 16.11.2022 and directions were issued to the BPO to do
the appraisal. It is submitted that the BPO had evaluated the entire records
and had concluded that the score awarded was pitiably low. It is further
submitted that for certain activities, score can either be zero or full and
cannot be intermediate.
13. I have considered the submissions advanced.
14. I find that in terms of the Circulars, Orders, and directions, the
performance appraisal of the Overseers was carried out by a team comprising
the Panchayat President, the Panchayat Secretary, the Assistant Engineer
(LSGD) and the BPO. As per the orders and circulars, for the renewal of the
contract, a minimum score of 55% was required. Later, the same was diluted
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
and was lowered down to 40%. In the original appraisal, the score obtained
by the petitioner was 38.07%. Smt. Baby Thomas filed a representation
complaining that the marks awarded were very less and that she was
victimized. This Court had directed the JPC to look into the matter and take a
decision. What the JPC has done was to direct the petitioner to the BPO, and
the said officer was ordered to conduct a reappraisal. Ext.P14 is the report of
the BPO after conducting the reappraisal of the score. A perusal of Ext.P14
issued by the BPO would reveal that the JPC had heard the parties on
16.11.2022. However, no records have been placed before this Court to
substantiate that the JPC had occasion to consider the representation and
take a decision as ordered by this Court. Be that as it may, it appears from
Ext.P14 that the BPO has taken upon himself the task of re-evaluating the
marks. He has prepared separate tables detailing the marks that could be
awarded, the marks that have been awarded, and the marks to which the
petitioner was entitled.
15. It is difficult to understand the rationale by which such a course
was adopted by the BPO. He has not stated as to whether any inputs were
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
obtained from the original committee members. The irrationality in awarding
the score would be discernible by just extracting the score for keeping the 'M'
book.
എം.ബുക്ക് ക്യത്യമായും സമയബന്ധിതമായും എഴുതി സൂക്ഷിക്കുന്നത്
നൽകാവുന്ന സ്കോർ നല്കിയ പുന ക്രമീകരിച്ച
ഇനം സ്കോർ
സ്കോർ
രേഖപെടുത്തൽ
ഉൾപ്പെടെ എം.ബുക്കിൽ
രേഖപ്പെടുത്തുന്നുണ്ടോ
16. For accurate notation in the 'M' Book, the maximum attainable
score is one. Both the Committee and the BPO allocated zero marks to the
petitioner for tasks including pre-measurement, material stacking, and memo
of payment. Meanwhile, accurate measurement entries could garner up to five
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
marks. Here, the Committee awarded one mark, while paradoxically, the BPO
allotted five. It is perplexing to observe the awarding of zero marks for
individual tasks and full marks for the aggregate task, which inherently
includes all the individual tasks. It is evident, therefore, that the BPO's
re-evaluation lacks thoughtful deliberation. This discrepancy is similarly noted
in the scoring of other categories as well. As the JPC was directed to address
the grievances by this Court, there was no reason why the task was entrusted
to the BPO. The Panchayat Secretary and the Assistant Engineer may have
had substantial reasons to award lesser marks for the work carried out over
an extensive period.
17. Furthermore, it was in the exercise of powers under Section
166(2) of the Panchayath Raj Act, that Panchayath carried out a fresh
selection process and went on to select the most eligible candidate. In the
facts and circumstances, I find no reason to issue directions to unsettle the
action taken by the Panchayat on the strength of an illegal and unsustainable
exercise carried out by the JPC and the BPO.
In view of the discussion above, these writ petitions are disposed of by
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
ordering as under:
a. W.P.(C) No.42099 of 2022 will stand dismissed. There will be
no order as to costs.
b. W.P.(C) No.40032/2022 will stand allowed. Exhibit P14 will
stand quashed. There will be a direction to the Kalady Grama
Panchayath to continue with the service of the petitioner in the
writ petition as an Accredited Overseer.
c. WP (C) No. 41371 of 2022 will stand allowed. It is held that
the 5th respondent in the above writ petition is not entitled to
continue as 'Overseer" in the Panchayat under the MGNREGA
Scheme.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
NS/27/9/2023
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41371/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(ORD)NO.1149/2021/LSGD
DATED 15.06.2021 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(ORD)NO.1559/2022/LSGD
DATED 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 08.07.2022
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR
NO.NREGA/372/2022-A3 DATED 23.07.2022
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF PERFORMANCE SCORE APPRAISAL
PUBLISHED BY 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14.10.2022 IN
W.P.(C) NO.31650/2022 ISSUED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR
NO.NREGA/372/2022-A3 DATED 29.07.2022
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.3014/22 DATED
18.11.2022 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER
NO.D.1.2684/2022/PAU(1) DATED 23.11.2022
ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42099/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF INTERVIEW LETTER TO THE POST
OF OVERSEER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT DATED
15.05.2012.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER APPOINTING THE
PETITIONER TO THE POST OF OVERSEER IN THE
4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT DATED
05.06.2012.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ON NON-MATERIAL
WORK SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
G.O(ORDINARY) NO.1559/2022/LSGD DATED
30.06.2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.NREGA/372/2022-A3 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.NREGA/372/2022-A3 DATED 23.07.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST SHOWING THE
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SCORE OF EACH
CONTRACT EMPLOYEES IN VARIOUS GRAMA
PANCHAYATS.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
MARK SHEET ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE
PETITIONER'S HUSBAND DATED 21.03.2022.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 06.08.2022.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 06.08.2022.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER EVIDENCING
THAT THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT HAD
CALLED FOR APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT
OF OVERSEER PUBLISHED ON 28.09.2022.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP (C)
NO.31650/2022 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE
COURT DATED 14.10.2022.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REVALUING THE
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SCORE OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 18.11.2022.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.D.1.2684/2022/P.A.U-(1) ISSUED BY THE
8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT
DATED 23.11.2022.
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40032/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 9/1 DATED
28.06.2022 ADOPTED BY RESPONDENT NO. 5 IN
FILE NO. 9/1
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2022
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO. GO(RT)
NO. 1559/2022/LSGD
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED
18.07.2022 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN
FILE NO. NREGA/372/2022-A3
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED
23.07.2022 IN NO. NREGA/372/2022-A3
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF DECISION NO. 1 OF THE
RESOLUTION DATED 26.09.2022 ADOPTED BY
RESPONDENT NO. 5 PANCHAYAT IN FILE NO.
A3-9373/22
Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
27.09.2022 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 IN
NREGS 3872/22
Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED
20.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI
UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF CANDIDATES
PLACED BEFORE THE INTERVIEW BOARD POST OF
PANCHAYAT
Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MARKS TO THE
POST OF ACCREDITED OVERSEER AT RESPONDENT
NO. 5 PANCHAYAT
Exhibit-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
14.10.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN W.P.(C) NO. 31650 OF 2022
W.P.(C) Nos. 42099, 41371 &
Exhibit-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
Exhibit-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT
STAFF EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH
Exhibit-P13 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED
29.07.2022 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN
NO. NREGA/372/2022-A3
Exhibit-P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2022
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 4 IN ORDER NO.
3014/22
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
G.O(ORDINARY) NO. 1559/2022/LSGD DATED
30.06.2022
Exhibit R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.NREGA/372/2022-A3 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit R6(c) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.NREGA/372/2022-A3 DATED 23.07.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit R6(d) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST SHOWING THE
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SCORE OF EACH
CONTRACT EMPLOYEES IN VARIOUS GRAMA
PANCHAYATS
