Allowed

Suchithra S. v. Ramla N.S.

Kerala HC12 Nov 2019OP(KAT)/312/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench upheld Kerala Administrative Tribunal finding that Livestock Inspector Grade-I is a State-level post but quashed Tribunal directions fixing District-wise seniority, leaving scope for State policy on future seniority fixation.

What did the court decide?

Orders of Tribunal affirmed regarding State-level status of LSI Grade-I posts; directions to fix District-wise seniority are set aside.

Suchithra S. Vs Ramla N.S. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No.247 OF 2018(Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.A.738/2017 DATED 11-04-2018 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN O.A.:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

¶11

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001, KERALA.

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, VIKAS BHAVAN BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033, KERALA.

¶13

BY ADVS. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶14

RESPONDENTS/ APPLICANTS IN O.A:

¶15

1 RAMLA N.S., D/O. SAIDU, NELLIMATTIATHIL HOUSE, AIROOPADAM P.O., ERNAKULAM -686692, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LIVESTOCK INSPECTOR GRADE I, ICDP SUB CENTRE, NEERACHAL, BADIYADUKKA, KASARGOD, KERALA - 671124.

¶16

2 ANIL M.G., S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, MOLATH HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683545, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LIVESTOCK INSPECTOR GRADE I, VETERINARY SUB CENTRE, ARIKKUZHA, PUTHUPPARIYAM, IDUKKI - 685808, KERALA.

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶19

3 CLEATES.K.J., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.JOSE K.J., KOORAN HOUSE, GANDHIGRAM, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DIST., NOW WORKING AS LIVESTOCK INSPECTOR GRADE-I, VETERINARY SUB CENTRE, PADIYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680 688.

¶20

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.11.2019 IN I.A.1/2019 IN OP(KAT) NO.247/2018.

¶21

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. R3 BY ADV. V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR R3 BY ADV. SMT.SURYA BINOY

¶22

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION (KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).256/2018(Z), OP(KAT).312/2018(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

- 3 -

¶24

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶28

¶29

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶30

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941

¶31

OP(KAT).No.256 OF 2018

¶32

AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.A.738/2017 DATED 11-04-2018 &

¶33

THE ORDER IN R.A.15/2018 DATED 18-06-2018 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶34

PETITIONERS/ REVIEW APPLICANTS IN O.A:

¶35

1 RENJITH P.R., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN K, RENJITH BHAVAN, KAITHAYIL, NETTAYAM P.O, POOYAPPILLY - 691 537.

¶36

2 DEEPA T.M., AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. SATHEESH KUMAR K.C, DEEPU BHAVAN, KARAKKAD P.O, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA - 689 504.

¶37

3 MANJUSHA S., AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. ANILKUMAR G, SABARINILAYAM, VAKKANADU, P.O, KOLLAM - 691 509.

¶38

4 HARIKUMAR C., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI N, NISHA BHAVANAM, PALLICKAL, P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 566.

¶39

5 SHAINU A., AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. SHIBUKHAN S, OOTHANPARAMPIL, ATHIKKATTUKULANGARA P.O, NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA - 690 504.

¶40

BY ADVS.

¶41

SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.S.ANEESH SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV.

¶42

- 4 -

¶43

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 &

¶44

connected cases

¶45

RESPONDENTS/ APPLICANTS & RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:

¶46

1 RAMLA. N.S., D/O. SAIDU, AGED 49 YEARS, NELLIMATTIATHIL HOUSE, AIROOPADAM P.O, ERNAKULAM - 686 692,

¶47

PRESENTLY WORKING AS LIVESTOCK INSPECTOR GRADE-I, ICDP SUB CENTRE, NEERACHAL, BADIYADUKKA, KASARAGOD, KERALA - 671 124.

¶48

2 ANIL M.G., S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, MOLATH HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM P.O, ERNAKULAM-683 545, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LIVESTOCK INSPECTOR GRADE-I, VETERINARY SUB CENTRE, ARIKKUZHA, PUTHUPPARIYAM, IDUKKI - 685 808.

¶49

3 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶50

4 THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, VIKAS BHAVAN BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶51

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶52

R1-R2 BY ADV. ELVIN PETER P.J. R3-R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH

¶53

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION (KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).247/2018(Z), OP(KAT).312/2018(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶54

- 5 -

¶55

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶56

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶57

PRESENT

¶58

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶59

¶60

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶61

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941

¶62

O.P(KAT).No.312 OF 2018

¶63

THE ORDER IN R.A.19/2018 IN O.A.738/2017 DATED 03-07-2018 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶64

PETITIONERS/ REVIEW PETITIONERS:

¶65

1 SUCHITHRA S., AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.SULOCHANA, SIVA SREE, CHAPPATH, UTHARAMCODE, KOTTOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 574.

¶66

2 MUBEENA.S., AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.SUHARA BEEVI, BUSHRA MANZIL, PEEZHUMMOODU, POOVACHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 575.

¶67

BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR.

¶68

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:

¶69

1 RAMLA N.S., AGED 49 YEARS, D/O.SAIDU, NELLIMATTIATHIL HOUSE, AIROOPADAM P.O., ERNAKULAM - 686 692. (PRESENTLY WOKING AS LIVESTOCK INSPECTOR GRADE-I, ICDP SUB CENTRE,NEERACHAL, BADIYADUKKA, KASARGOD, KERALA-671 124.

¶70

2 ANIL.M.G., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, MOLATH HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 545. (PRESENTLY WORKING AS LIVESTOCK INSPECTOR GRADE-I, VETERINARY SUB CENTRE, ARIKKUZHA, PUTHUPPARIYAM, IDUKKI - 685 808).

¶71

- 6 -

¶72

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶73

3 STATE OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.

¶74

4 THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DIRECTORATE OF ANUMAL HUSBANDRY, VIKAS BHAVAN BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPUAM-695 033.

¶75

R1-R2 BY ADV. ELVIN PETER P.J. R3-R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH.

¶76

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION (KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).247/2018(Z), OP(KAT).256/2018(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶77

- 7 -

¶78

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶79

K.Vinod Chandran & V.G.Arun, JJ.

¶80

----------------------------------O.P(KAT) Nos.247, 256 & 312 of 2018

¶81

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2019

¶82

JUDGMENT

¶83

K. Vinod Chandran,J:

¶84

The controversy raised herein has its genesis in the claim for transfer as raised by two Live Stock Inspectors [for brevity “LSI”] Grade-I, who wish to go out of the districts in which they were appointed as LSI Grade-II and then promoted as LSI Grade-I. They claimed that LSI Gr-I has a State-wide seniority list and is a State-wise post, to which transfer has to be carried out in accordance with the norms of the Government laid down for transfer of Government servants. Admittedly LSI Grade-I was also considered as District-wise posts and retained in the very same district for long. The Tribunal found that the LSI Grade-I and Assistant Field Officer [for brevity “AFO”], both promotion posts in the Subordinate Services, are State level posts and the transfers made

¶85

of the incumbents would be treated as a general

¶86

- 8 -

¶87

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶88

transfer and not inter-district transfer, the latter of which is subject to loss of seniority.

¶89

2. The petitioners in O.P(KAT) Nos.256 and 312

¶90

of 2018 are persons included in the rank list of the Kerala Public Service Commission [for brevity “PSC”] for recruitment to the post of LSI Grade-II in Thiruvananthapuram and Alappuzha Districts. They have no quarrel with the finding of the Tribunal that LSI

¶91

Grade-I is a State level post. However, they are aggrieved with the further determination of the Tribunal as to in which district the vacancy of LSI Grade-II arise so as to report to the PSC. The petitioners assert that this was not a ground which was raised in the Tribunal and there was no scope for the Tribunal to go into such matters.

¶92

3. The State has filed O.P(KAT) No.247 of 2018 seeking to affirm its opinion that posts in LSI Grade-I are also District-wise posts. One LSI Grade-I from Thrissur has filed an impleading petition in O.P(KAT) No.247 of 2018, who is impleaded as additional respondent No.3, to sustain the contentions of the

¶93

- 9 -

¶94

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶95

State. He apprehends his transfer from Thrissur if the Tribunal's order is upheld and claims that he is eligible to be continued in Thrissur till a promotion post arises in the post of Field Officer, which is in

¶96

the State Services as distinguished from the Subordinate Services. Field Officer is also the promotion post of Assistant Field Officer. The fact that Field Officer is in the State services while all other services are in the Subordinate Services of the State, is the ground on which the additional respondent seeks his retention in the District of Thrissur, to which he was recruited, till he is eligible to be appointed as Field Officer on promotion. The applicants before the Tribunal as also the petitioners herein urge that it is not the categorization of services as State

¶97

and subordinate which distinguishes the posts as District-wise and State-wise.

¶98

4. We heard Sri.P.Nandakumar, Sri.D.Ajithkumar

¶99

for the party-petitioners Sri.Antony Mukkath (Senior Government Pleader) for the petitioner State, Sri.Elvin Peter for the applicants before the Tribunal

¶100

- 10 -

¶101

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶102

(respondents 1 and 2 herein) and Smt.Surya Binoy for the addl.3^rd respondent in O.P(KAT) 247 of 2018.

¶103

5. The learned Government Pleader and the additional 3^rd respondent in O.P(KAT) 247 of 2018 argue that LSI Grade-I and LSI Grade-II posts are in the same cadre and it is only on the basis of a time bound grade promotion that persons are adjusted in Grade-I. Reference is also made to Annexure R2(c) and R2(d) to point out that there is only a ratio promotion insofar as Grade-I and Grade-II as in the case of Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Clerk. It also refers

¶104

to there being no change of duty and in such circumstances both the posts are to be considered in the very same cadre. The learned Counsel for the petitioners as also respondents 1 and 2 in all the three Original Petitions (the applicants before the Tribunal) submit that LSI Grade-II is the entry post, to which recruitment is made by the PSC. The District wise seniority was a concept introduced in 1971, to ensure that the appointees to far flung districts do not vacate their posts immediately on recruitment, by

¶105

- 11 -

¶106

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶107

inter-district transfers.

¶108

6. We find that the District-wise seniority was insisted upon because the PSC conducts recruitment District-wise to entry posts in the Subordinate Services. Earlier a person appointed to a far-off district would immediately claim inter-district transfer and get a posting to his home district, resulting in dearth of government servants to man the

¶109

posts in far flung districts, immediately after the recruitment itself. It is in such circumstances, on the advise of the PSC, the State decided to have a District-wise recruitment, which was brought in by G.O. (Ms.) No.154/71/PD dated 27.05.1971. This Government Order provided for delegation of work to the District Recruitment Boards in connection to the advise of the candidates for certain posts. The specific purpose as seen from the G.O was to decentralise the recruitment of lower ministerial cadres in the District level. A person appointed in a particular district could seek inter-district transfer only after five years from the date of commencement of his service that too subject to

¶110

- 12 -

¶111

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶112

the conditions laid down in GO(MS) No.4/61/PD dated 02.01.1961.

¶113

7. The G.O. of 1961 deals with revised

¶114

principles of mutual and inter-departmental transfers in public services. Therein the mutual

¶115

interdepartmental transfers of Government servants from one unit to another within the same Department or from one Department to another within the same subordinate service can be ordered by the appointing authorities on request, subject to the conditions enumerated therein. The first condition is that a person transferred to a new unit will take rank below the junior most in the category in the new unit or Department. He would not be allowed to count his previous service towards seniority and his transfer would not be prejudicial to the legitimate interest of anyone in the Department to which he is transferred. This does not disallow counting of the previous service towards increment, leave, pension, gratuity etc. In such circumstances, inter-District transfers as regulated by the Government Order of 1971 would not affect the seniority of the

¶116

- 13 -

¶117

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶118

persons in the District to which a person is transferred and he would be posted as a junior most in that District in that particular service and category. This is the reason for maintaining a District-wise seniority list and for promotion to any State-wise post the seniority as assigned in a District would regulate such promotions.

¶119

8. Hence, on obtaining an inter-district transfer, the person will be posted as the junior-most in the seniority list that exists in the District to which he is transferred, as on the date of joining in that District. It is by this Government Order that the concept of District-wise recruitment and District-wise seniority was introduced in the Subordinate Services. In such circumstances, the District-wise seniority is maintained only at the entry post and not in the promotion post.

¶120

9. We further notice the Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Special Rules, 1993, which is placed before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2. The mode of

¶121

- 14 -

¶122

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶123

appointment is seen from Rule 3 of the Special Rules, wherein Category II speaks of Livestock Inspector Senior Grade, which post was re-designated as AFO. Category III is LSI Grade-I and Category VI LSI Grade-II, each category also enumerating other comparable posts too. We are referring to the LSI's post only, since that is the one which is relevant for the present Original Petitions. Mode of recruitment for

¶124

LSI Grade-I is by promotion from Category VI, i.e., LSI Grade-II. Likewise promotion to Category II [LSI Senior Grade/ AFO], from Category III, i.e., LSI Grade-I. They belong to different categories and are not distinct grades in the same category.

¶125

10. With respect to the contention of the additional 3^rd respondent in W.A.No.247 of 2018 that there is no change of duties and that LSI Grade-I and LSI Grade-II are in the same cadre, Sri.Elvin Peter points out Rule 28(e) of KS&SSR, which speaks of probation where there are more than one grade to the same category. Rule 28(e) is extracted hereunder:

¶126

“28(e) Probation where there are more than one grade to the same category.- Notwithstanding

¶127

- 15 -

¶128

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶129

anything to the contrary contained in the Special Rules where there are more than one grade to the same category and duties and responsibilities attached to the various grades are one and the same, and appointment to the higher grades are made by promotion from the lower grades, then probation shall be insisted only in the lowest grade to such category”.

¶130

11. To bring the two grades within the same

¶131

category as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the additional 3^rd respondent in the appeal of the State, there are conditions discernible of (i) there shall be no change of duties (ii) there are more than one grade within the same category and (iii) there shall be requirement of probation and declaration, on satisfactory completion only in the lower grade. As we have seen, the two grades of LSI Grade-I and LSI Grade-II are in two categories as per the Special Rules. It is also pertinent that the Special Rules prescribe for a probation period as per Rule 8, in the promotion post. Hence, even a person who is promoted as LSI Grade I from the post of LSI Grade II has to successfully complete probation in that post within the

¶132

- 16 -

¶133

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶134

time stipulated therein.

¶135

12. We do not find any reason to interfere with

¶136

the finding of the Tribunal that LSI Grade I is a State-wise post nor is there a challenge to that by any government servant. The additional respondent cannot challenge the order by getting impleaded in the appeal. The Governments challenge stands rejected on the above reasoning.

¶137

13. We also specifically notice the statements made in the additional reply statement filed by the Government dated 05.01.2018 in paragraph 5:

¶138

“5. It is submitted that promotions to Livestock Inspector Grade-I is done at state level, based on a state level Seniority list. But state level posts are not separately identified or fixed at each unit/district of the department till date. Promoted employee will continued as district level employee in the same district even after promotion. When a vacancy of Livestock Inspector Grade-I arises, Senior most Livestock Inspector Grade-II in the state, based on a combined seniority list of Livestock Inspector Grade-II in all 14 Districts is promoted. Vacancy of Livestock Inspector Grade-I and Asst.Field Officer arised

¶139

- 17 -

¶140

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶141

are considered as state level vacancy for promotion. Nature of duty of Livestock Inspector Grade-II, Livestock Inspector Grade-I, Assistant Field Officer are the same”.

¶142

This goes contrary to the contentions raised in the State appeal. We do not find any merit in O.P(KAT) No.247 of 2018 filed by the State and reject the same, which was only against the finding of State-wise post with respect to LSI Grade-I.

¶143

14. We further notice the Tribunal having proceeded to formulate a method to determine State-wise seniority, by directing fixation of District-wise cadre insofar as the three categories of LSI Grade-II, LSI Grade-I and AFO, which works against their own finding that posts of LSI Grade-I and AFO are State level. Those directions are also beyond the scope of the O.A.

¶144

15. O.P(KAT) Nos.256 and 312 of 2018 are allowed, deleting the portions where the Tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction insofar as directing the State to fix seniority District-wise in different categories of posts discernible from the General Rules. We affirm

¶145

the order of the Tribunal with respect to the LSI

¶146

- 18 -

¶147

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶148

Grade-I being a State-wise post. We set aside the directions otherwise as to how the seniority has to be fixed in the different categories of posts as per the Special Rules; which is the prerogative of the State and the anomalies if any have not arisen for adjudication in the instant O.As. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.

¶149

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶150

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶151

vku/-

¶152

- 19 -

¶153

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶154

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 247/2018

¶155

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶156

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION DATED 18.04.2017 IN OA NO.738/2017.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA NO.738/2017.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 26.07.2017 IN OA NO.738/2017 FILED BY THE APPLICANTS.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 5.12.2017 IN OA NO.738/2017.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY THE APPLICANTS IN OA NO.738/2017.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 5.1.2018 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA NO.738/2017.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA NO.738/2017.
EXT. P1-ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXT. P1-ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.R 14701/16 DATED 04/03/2016.
EXT. P1-ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.K4-19233/2016/SERVICE DATED 13/03/2017.
EXT. P1-ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 12/08/2016 UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXT. P1-ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY OF REPLY R1 NO.23348/2016 DATED 09/09/2016.
EXT. P1-ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.AHD/2283/2017-D3 DATED 30/03/2017 IS ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY.
EXT. P3-ANNEXURE A7	TRUE COPY OF INTER-DISTRICT TRANSFER ORDER NO.B11713/13/EST DATED 01/01/2015 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT VETERINARY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶157

- 20 -

¶158

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶159

EXT. P3-ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY LETTER NO.30032/AHE1/12AD DATED 16/10/2012.

¶160

EXT. P5-ANNEXURE MA1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.K4.8181/2017/ESTT DATED 31/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY.

¶161

[TRUE COPY]

¶162

- 21 -

¶163

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶164

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 256/2018

¶165

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶166

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2018 IN RA NO. 15 OF 2018 ON THE FILED OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.

¶167

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF R.A NO.15 OF 2018.

¶168

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF O.A NO.738 OF 2017

¶169

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶170

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANTS.

¶171

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF M.A NO.3263 OF 2017. ANNEXURE RA1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11/04/2018 IN OA NO.738/2017.

¶172

ANNEXURE RA2 TRUE COPY OF RANKED LIST NO.472/17/DOA FOR CATEGORY NO.068/2014 DATED 09/05/2017. ANNEXURE RA3 TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.1/91/P&ARD DATED 07/01/1991.

¶173

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED NIL UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.RI.4701/16 DATED 04/03/2016.

¶174

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.K4 19233/2016/SERVICE DATED 13/03/2017.

¶175

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 12/08/2016 UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶176

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY R I NO.23348/2018 DATED 09/09/2016.

¶177

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.AHD/2283/2017-D3 DATED 30/03/2017 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY.

¶178

- 22 -

¶179

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶180

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF INTER DISTRICT TRANSFER ORDER NO.B11713/13/ESTT. DATED 01/01/2015 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT VETERINARY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶181

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY LETTER NO.30032/AHE1/12AD DATED 16.10.2012.

¶182

ANNEXURE MA1 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.K4-8181/2017/ESTT, DATED 31/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY.

¶183

[TRUE COPY]

¶184

- 23 -

¶185

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 &

¶186

connected cases

¶187

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 312/2018

¶188

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶189

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/07/2018 IN R.A.NO.19 OF 2018 IN O.A.NO.738 OF 2017 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE R.A.NO.19 OF 2018 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES ON THE FILE OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.738 OF 2017 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES ON THE FILE OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 4/7/2017 IN O.A.NO.738 OF 2017.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 26/07/2017 IN O.A.NO.738 OF 2017.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.IN O.A.NO.738/2017 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURE -MA1.
EXT. P2-ANNEXURE RA1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2018 IN O.A.NO.738/2017.
EXT. P2-ANNEXURE RA2	TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST NO.793/17/DOT FOR CATEGORY NO.068/2014 DATED 10/08/2017.
EXT. P2-ANNEXURE RA3	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.1/91/P&ARD, DATED 07/01/1991.
EXT. P3-ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXT. P3-ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO R.I. 4701/16 DATED 04/03/2016.
EXT. P3-ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.K4 19233/2016/SERVICE DATED 13/03/2017.
EXT. P3-ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12/08/2016 UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXT. P3-ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY R.I. NO.23348/2016 DATED 09/09/2016.

¶190

- 24 -

¶191

OP(KAT).247 of 2018 & connected cases

¶192

EXT. P3-ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.AHD/2283/2017-D3 DATED 30/03/2017 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY. EXT. P5-ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTER-DISTRICT TRANSFER ORDER NO.B11713/13/EST. DATED 01/01/2015 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT VETERINARY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶193

EXT. P5-ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY LETTER NO.30032/AHE1/12AD DATED 16/10/2012.

¶194

EXT. P6. ANNEXURE MA1 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.K4.8181/2017/ESTT DATED 31/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY.

¶195

[TRUE COPY]

Suchithra S. v. Ramla N.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suchithra S. v. Ramla N.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Molly @ Rema Vs v.K.Vijayan

P.Udayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Indira M.K. Vs Director of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram

Asif.N, Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep

State of Kerala Vs Ramla N.S

Renjith P.R Vs Ramla. N.S