Mohammed Riyazath Khan, C.P vs Union Of India

The applicant is a native of Andrott Island in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. He is a postgraduate in Physical Education. Later, he underwent a course in coaching in swimming held from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015 under Sports Authority of India, Bangalore Centre and obtained Diploma in Sports Coaching in Swimming. The Diploma was secured in June 2015. Then, he understood that there is a vacancy of Coach in Swimming available in Lakshadweep Administration. However, to his surprise, the post remained filled by adjusting under Rule 77 of the General Financial Rules by appointing the 7^th respondent as Yoga teacher. In Annexure A-7, the 7^th respondent was informed that 'his appointment is purely on temporary basis and the same shall not confer on him any claim for regular appointment in the grade. His service will be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. The appointment is further subject to the condition of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.'

As the applicant was born and brought up in Lakshadweep island, is a Scheduled Tribe. Then he gave Annexures A-9 and A-10 representatios before the 2^nd and 6^th respondent respectively requesting to consider him to be appointed to the post of Swimming Coach. When that was not considered, he moved this Tribunal with O.A 96/2016 which was disposed of at the admission stage itself, directing the respondents to consider the representation at the earliest, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. That representation was considered and rejected by Annexure A-12 order issued by the 6^th respondent which is impugned in the Original Application.

The applicant seeks the following reliefs against the respondents:

Central Administrative Tribunal^{Annexure-A12 order in accordance with law} within a reasonable time.

vi) To issue such other order or direction to the official respondents in the interest of justice and fairness to the applicant and to grant cost of this Original Application.”

According to the applicant, Annexure A-12 order issued by the 6^th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed. It discloses high degree of favouritism, despotism and official prejudice on the part of respondents 2 to 6 and is quite contrary to the approved principles of law in the matter of public appointment. Annexure A-12 is per se bad in law and is liable to be interfered with and to be quashed.

The respondents have no dispute on the qualifications of the applicant. There is no case that the 6^th respondent had abolished or cancelled the post of Swimming Coatch created in Lakshadweep Administration or has given permission to fill up the post sanctioned by the first respondent regularly/permanently by a Yoga teacher. Annexure A-12 does not say that permission was granted by the 1^st respondent to fill up the post of Swimming Coach by Yoga teacher on temporary basis and allowed that person to continue for 21 years. Annexure A-12 has been issued without permission, jurisdiction and authority. The 7^th respondent is not qualified for the post and there is no rationale or reason supporting the contentions taken in paragraph 7 of the impugned order. If one post of Swimming Coach was not necessary, it should have been informed to the Central Government and got it abolished or cancelled. That was not done by the Administration or the 6^th respondent. The last portion of the impugned order goes against paragraph 8. The condition permission explicitely defeats Annexure A-12 order. This strikes at the root of the contention taken in paragraph 7 of the impugned order.

From Annexure A-7, it is clear that the 7^th respondent does not have any claim for regular appointment to the post of Yoga teacher. Similarly, it is stated that his service will be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. Still, he is allowed to continue for more than 21 years. This itself shows that an unhealthy nexus existed between respondent nos.2 to 6 with the 7^th respondent who has been managed to continue on temporary basis for such a long period.

According to the applicant, the respondents have no case that the post of Swimming Coach was converted to that of Yoga teacher permanently with the approval of the Central Government. In the circumstances, the act of the respondents in not filling up the post of Swimming Coach is arbitrary, illegal and invalid. The act of the respondents in allowing the 7^th respondent to continue is also illegal, is intended to help him.

It is further submitted that the respondents have to produce the copy of the Recruitment Rules of Yoga teacher. Annexure A-7 was issued without any public employment notice. The name of the 7^th respondent was got forwarded at the cost of persons waiting for public employment. Moreover, the contention that the 7^th respondent was selected and appointed on regular basis cannot hold good on the face of Annexure A-7.

According to the applicant, the averments in Annexure A-12 are self contradictory. The impugned order issued by the 6^th respondent exhibits special interest to protect the illegal appointment of the 7^th respondent who is continuing against the post of Swimming Coach on the basis of the approval granted by the 2^nd respondent.

According to the applicant, the post of Yoga teacher was filled atleast on temporary basis without cancelling or abolishing the post of Swimming Coach nor the post of Swimming Coach was converted in to Yoga teacher permanently. The appointment of the 7^th respondent was only a temporary arrangement, which could not have been continued indefinitely. The illegal appointment of the 7^th respondent without creating a post of Yoga teacher indicates the illegal activities of the respondents. The 6^th respondent has suppressed actual facts, on the basis an illegal appointment stands exposed and that has to be explained by the respondents.

It is evident from Annexure A-12 that the 7^th respondent was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for temporary appointment as provided under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. It cannot be termed as a whole time employment as provided under Rule 1(iv)(b). Rule 5 stipulates that service of government servants shall be liable to be terminated after giving notice of one month. As per Rule 2 temporary service means 'the service of a temporary government servant in a temporary post or officiating service in a permanent post, under the government of India.' Therefore, at any such imagination, respondents 2 to 6 could not have allowed the 7^th respondent to continue without inviting application for the sanctioned post of Swimming Coach.

To the knowledge of the applicant, the 7^th respondent has never conducted any yoga class or yoga training or yoga programme in the islands. It is for the other respondents to prove that probation of the 7^th respondent was declared and he was given promotion to any grade. Everything exhibits high degree of favoritism and malafide acts.

Further, it is averred that, it is evident that two posts of Swimming Coaches were created in Lakshadweep Administration. One Central Administrative Tribunal^{alone was filled and the other post remaining vacant, the 7th} respondent should not have been appointed as a Yoga teacher against the second vacancy invoking Rule 77 of GFR indefinitely. Now qualified hands are available. Even if Rule 77 of the then GFR or rule 254 of the present GFR are invoked, that cannot be continued indefinitely. The respondents are bound to undo the mistakes committed by them. Annexure A-12 cannot be approved and therefore, he has been forced to approach the Tribunal seeking the reliefs quoted supra.

Respondents 2 to 6 filed reply statement, fully supporting Annexure A-12 and the averments in the reply are in tune with the contentions in Annexure A-12 by which the representations submitted by the applicant were rejected. According to them, the Original Application has been filed by concealing correct facts and on experimental basis. The Administration had not considered persons possessing qualifications of Yoga teacher for appointment to the post of Swimming Coach, contrary to the contentions of the applicant. On the other hand, they had only made an adjustment of the second post of Swimming Coach as need based requirement. According to them, Yoga is an essential part of Indian culture and heritage and the National Policy on Education 1986 (NPE for short), brought a wider participation for Yoga. With the National Policy on Education 1986, started a system which promised an integrated development of body and mind. Yoga, therefore, requires, special attention in the scheme of events. As per the National Policy, it was required to make all efforts to introduce Yoga in all schools.

Thus, the Lakshadweep Administration initiated action to appoint a Yoga teacher to the Government Senior Secondary School, Kavaratti since there was no regular post of Yoga teacher created under the Administration, the post of Swimming Coach, which was lying vacant for long period of time was identified to meet the immediate requirement. The post of Swimming Coach created in the year 1986 continued to remain vacant till 1995 due to non-availability of eligible candidates to fill up the post. Coaching classes for swimming to the school children and also youths were organisaed by the Swimming Coach already appointed by the Department. Having found that the post of Swimming Coach was filled, was sufficient to handle the requirement, the Administration took a conscious decision to convert the second post of Swimming Coach as Yoga Teacher for introduction of Yoga in schools as per the National Policy on Education.

Further, it is submitted that if the argument of the applicant is accepted, the Administration should have to keep the post of Swimming Coach created in 1986 vacant for long period, anticipating availability of eligible candidates.

According to them, even if the post was not converted, that would not have been available for appointment at this stage 'as the same had been banned under the instructions of the Government of India'. As per the Recruitment Rules published under Annexure A-5 on 28.07.2006, there is only one post of Coach Swimming with effect from 28.07.2006, that post has already been occupied.

According to the respondents, there is no substance in the contentions raised by the applicant. When the post remained vacant, invoking Rule 77 of GFR, as per the requirement and need of the Department to promote Yoga, a fresh Recruitment Rule to fill up the post of Yoga teacher was framed and notified as per notification F.No.5/14/98-Edn.(Sports) dated 02.07.1995. On the basis of that Recruitment Rule, and after following due procedure, Shri.K.P.Jaffer, 7^th respondent was selected and appointed as Yoga teacher on 14.07.1995. So the Original Application is sought to be dismissed.

The 7^th respondent filed a separate reply contending that the post of Swimming Coach is not available and the applicant is not justified in seeking to fill up the post after removing him from the post in which he was appointed. The applicant has no locus standi to claim the relief. The vacancies of Coaches can be filled up only in terms of Annexure A-5 Recruitment Rules. Here it is evident that the number of post of Swimming Coach is just one. That has already been filled up. Thus he has sought for dismissing the Original Application.

According to the 7^th respondent, he was appointed following due process. The applicant has no case that he is not having necessary qualification to continue in the post of Yoga teacher. The applicant has also not challenged Annexure A-6 order which provided for adjustment of the post of Swimming Coach to that of Yoga teacher and Anexure A-7 order by which the applicant was appointed. Both these orders would clearly reveal that the appointment of the 7^th respondent was done following due procedures.

He has further claimed that he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and his appointment is against major head to 204-sports and youth services 0700011-1(1) does not make the appointment irregular in any manner. It is evident from the records and contentions mentioned by him that the appointment was done by following the procedures contemplated under the law. He also has submitted that the Original Application has been filed on experimental basis.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{22. The applicant filed separate rejoinders to the above stated} replies, reiterating his contentions and submitted that there is no justification in not filling up the post of Swimming Coach since qualified hands are available.

We heard the learned counsel for the applicant Shri.N.Unnikrishnan, Shri.N.Anilkumar, SPC for the first respondent and Shri.K.S.Prenjith Kumar representing Shri.R.V.Sreejith, learned SCGC for the Lakshadweep Administration on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 6 and Ms.Sonia Shibu representing Shri.Lal K.Joseph for the 7^th respondent in detail.

It is not disputed that the applicant possesses necessary qualifications for appointment to the post of Swimming Coach. The essential qualifications are, as seen in Annexure A-5, Post graduate degree in physical education (MPE/MPEd.) two year duration, one year diploma in coaching in the relevant discipline from the National Institute of Sports (NIS); National Level Certificate/participation in the respective sports discipline is also desirable. The documents produced by the applicant do suggest that he is a post- graduate in Physical Education and also secured one year Diploma in swimming coaching from the Sports Authority of India, Bangalore centre. So necessarily, he possesses necessary qualifications to be appointed as a Coach in swimming discipline.

Annexure A-5 indicates that the Lakshadweep Administration had issued a notification on 28^th July 2006 promulgating the Rules, by name, Lakshadweep Administration, Education Department, Coach (Group 'B', Non-gazetted, Non-ministerial post) Recruitment Rules, 2006. We have already stated the qualifications required. The method of appointment is by promotion failing which by direct recruitment. The number of posts are 5 (Swimming -1, Atheletic -1, Volley Ball -2 and Foot Ball-1).

The applicant had acquired qualifications in 2015; immediately thereafter he gave Annexures A-9 and A-10 representations before the respondent nos.2 and 6 respectively and thereafter as directed by this Tribunal in Annexure A-11 order dated 05.02.2015, the representations were considered and disposed of through Annexure A-12 order which is challenged in the instant O.A.

The relevant portions of Annexure A-12 can be extracted thus:

Central Administrative Tribunal^{candidates. This post continued to remain} vacant due to non availability of any qualified hands till June, 1995.

The Govt. of India formulated a scheme for introduction of yoga in schools and the same was communicated to the Lakshadweep Administration vide letter D.O. No.F-9-6/87-Desk-A (PE) (UT-2) dated 20.4.89 by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, New Delhi. Yoga being an essential part of India's Cultural heritage, the National Policy on Education, 1986 brought about a wider perspective in regard to Yoga. The national policy stated that as a system which promote an integrated development of body and mind, yoga will recall special attention. Efforts will be made to introduce yoga in all schools. Based on the Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangatham experiments, its evaluation, and on consultation with yoga experts and keeping in view the provisions of national policy on education, this scheme has been worked out for introduction of yoga in schools. Schools having students strength more than 1000 need to have an independent yoga teacher and for the schools having students strength less than 1000, the existing teachers like Physical Education Teacher etc. need to be trained for conducting yoga classes to the children.

In view of the above instructions of the Govt. of India, the Lakshadweep Administration initiated action to appoint a yoga teacher to the Govt. Senior Secondary School, Kavaratti with student strength more than 1000. Since there was no regular post of yoga teacher created under Lakshadweep Administration, the Central Administrative Tribunal^{availability of existing posts which were} lying vacant for a long period were identified. It was noticed that the post of Swimming Coach created in the year 1986 continued to remain vacant till 1995 due to non availability of eligible candidates to fill up the post. The coaching classes for swimming to the school children and also to the youths were organized by the swimming coach already appointed under the department. Having found that one post of swimming coach already filled was sufficient to handle the requirements of coaching classes for swimming to the island children, the Lakshadweep Administration decided to convert the 2nd post of swimming coach as Yoga Teacher for introducing yoga classes in the schools as per the scheme of the Govt. of India for introduction of Yoga in schools as per the provisions of the National Policy on Education, 1986.

A fresh Recruitment Rules to fill up the post of Yoga Teacher was also framed and notified vide notification F.No.5/14/89-Edn. (Sports) dated 2.7.1995. Based on the provisions of the above recruitment rules and after following all the recruitment procedure, Shri.K.P.Jaffar, Kuttithayapura House, Kavaratti was selected to the post of Yoga Teacher and appointed vide order F.No.18/21/95-Edn/2 dated 14.7.95.

Shri.K.P.Jaffar, Yoga Teacher has been working in the Govt. Senior Secondary School, Kavaratti for the last 21 years from the date of his appointment on 14.7.95 on regular basis. Therefore, there is no vacancy of Swimming Coach in the Department of Education from 14.7.95, the date on which the regular incumbents has been posted Central Administrative Tribunal^{against the said vacancy as Yoga Teacher.}

This action cannot be reversed.

The post of Swimming Coach was created in the year 1986. Hence the post created in 1986 could not have been kept vacant for the last 30 years anticipating the availability of an eligible candidate at this point of time. Therefore, even if the post of swimming coach had not been converted as Yoga Teacher for the purpose of conduct yoga classes in schools, the same would not have been available for the applicant to claim at this stage as the same would have been banned under the ban instructions of the Govt. of India issued from time to time.

Therefore, Shri.Mohammed Riyazath Khan.C.P. who had taken one year Diploma course in swimming in the year 2011 cannot claim for the post of Swimming Coach which was created in the year 1986 and subsequently converted as Yoga Teacher in the year 1995 and the same has been filled on regular basis in the year 1995 and that the incumbent working as Yoga Teacher on regular basis is still continuing in the said post. Hence, there is no vacancy of Swimming Coach existing under the department. Most importantly, even if the vacant post were to exist, there can be no automatic claim of eligibility for appointment to the post of Swimming Coach since, the vacant post would be filled as per the Recruitment Rules in force and as per prescribed selection procedure.

In view of the above circumstances, the claim made by Shri.Mohammed Riyazath Khan.C.P. of Andrott Island for the post of Swimming Coach is hereby rejected.”

From the above extract, it is clear that two posts of Swimming Coaches were created in 1986, one was already filled up and against the other, qualified hands were not available and thus, invoking Rule 77 of the GFR, the 7^th respondent was appointed as Yoga teacher. It was a need based appointment and also in accordance with the National Policy on Education. Thus, according to the respondents, one post already filled up, the other having converted as per Annexure A-6 order, now no post is available for accommodating the applicant as represented by him.

After evaluating the circumstances and sequence of events, we are of the view that the applicant has built up a case on weak pillars. It is true that the applicant is fully qualified and possesses all the essential qualifications required as per Annexure A-5 Recruitment Rules. But that will not give rise to any right in his favour. Firstly, there must be a post to be filled up. From Annexure A-5, it is clear that there is only one post of Swimming Coach, which had already been filled up. It may be true that, earlier, two posts were available, created in 1986, one was already filled up and the other remained vacant for long. Later, that post was converted and filled up invoking Rule 77 of the GFR and the 7^th respondent was appointed as a Yoga teacher as seen in Annexures A-6 and A-7. That means, the lone post of Swimming Coach had already been filled up and nothing was left to accommodate the applicant. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim that he is entitled to be considered to the post.

Secondly and more importantly, the Annexure A-5 Recruitment Rules was published on 28.07.2006. On that day, there is only one post of Swimming Coach. As seen from Annexure A-12, the post of Swimming Coach already stood filled up and nothing was left to be filled up at the time when the applicant had come out qualified by acquiring essential qualifications. So long as no vacancy of Swimming Coach is available, he cannot aspire to the post and on that ground also, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.

Thirdly, let us assume that there is a vacancy of Swimming Coach available in Lakshadweep, at the time when the applicant had passed out, but the applicant has no case that any notification was issued inviting applications to fill up the post. Unless and until, the department invites application to fill up a post, a candidate cannot volunteer and say that it should be filled up and he should be considered. Here, the Original Application, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, is filed on experimental basis. At the time of filing the Original Application, there was no such vacancy available to be filled up. The respondents did not invite any application. The applicant was volunteering on the ground that the 7^th respondent was appointed invoking Rule 77 GFR which is illegal etc. But as a matter of fact, we cannot forget that Annexures A-6 and A-7 were issued in June and July 1995, long before the applicant had come out qualified by securing a Diploma in sports coaching. At the time when the applicant became qualified, no such post was available and therefore he cannot seek such a direction.

It is the accepted principle that even if a candidate is included in a select list, that will not give rise to a right to be selected and appointed. He can only be considered for appointment. Here the situation is worse. There is no such vacancy available nor the respondents have invited any application for filling up any post. Therefore, the applicant does not have any cause of action to agitate against the respondents.

As stated earlier, Annexure A-6 and Annexure A-7 indicate appointment of the 7^th respondent was taken place in July 1995. That was done in accordance with the situation prevailed in 1995. At that time, the applicant was not in the field. The then available post of Swimming Coach was converted temporarily, invoking Rule 77 GFR and the 7th respondent was appointed as Yoga teacher. Though, such an appointment was on temporary basis, invoking provisions of the Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, it appears that the 7^th respondent had continued in service till his retirement from service on superannuation in 2020. Annexure A-12 indicates that, thereafter, a post of Yoga teacher was created and separate Recruitment Rules was framed and the 7^th respondent was appointed in terms of the Recruitment Rules notified on 02.07.1995. The records proving such appointment, apart from Annexures A6 and A-7, are not available here. Copy of the Recruitment Rules also has not been produced. But the submissions of the respondent nos.2 to 6 indicate that he was appointed against regular vacancy and then, was allowed to continue in service till the date of superannuation in 2020.

Annexure A-12 indicates that one of the posts of Swimming Coaches created in 1986 remained vacant till 1995 when Annexure A-7 was issued. Ordinarily, that should not have happened. Ordinarily, when a post remains vacant for more than five years, it gets abolished and for revivig and filling up the same, sanction from the Ministry of Finance is required. It is not known as to how such a post remained vacant for more than 11 years, was available to be converted as done under Annexures A-6 and A-7. Annexures 13 and A-14 in respect of appointment of one Smt.Ameera Bin Muhammed in the place of Smt.Sudhamini, Dance Teacher, who retired on 31.03.2000 remained vacant till 22.01.2011 to be filled up, also is capable of raising many eyebrows. Similar is the case of Annexures A-15 and A-16, which show that one Shri.Muhammed Mustafa was appointed as Mechanical Instructor on 09.09.2014 against the retirement vacancy of Shri.K.C.Mustafa and vacancy had arisen on 30.09.2005. That means about 9 years, the post remained vacant. Annexure A-17 indicates that the vacancy of Foot Ball coach was filled up after 7 years. Similar is the case of the appointment of Junior Librarian as seen in Annexures A-18 and A-19 against vacancy that had arisen on 18.02.2006, on the vacancy arose after the demise of Shri.Muthukoya, after, about 8 years. That means, in Lakshadweep Administration, even if the post remained vacant for long, rule of abolition of the post was not being followed, posts were kept alive even after it remained vacant for long. Whatever it may be, such lapses or omissions on the part of the Administration, will not give rise to any right in favour of the applicant.

As stated earlier, on the date when the applicant had passed out with the Diploma Course conducted by the Sports Authority of India, such a vacancy was not available. The lone post of Swimming Coach stood filled up in 1995 itself; Annexure A-5 Recruitment Rules indicates that there is only one post of Swimming Coach which remained filled up and nothing was available in favour of the applicant to be filled up. All such considerations, obliterate the claim of the applicant that he is entitled to be considered for the post of Swimming Coach.

Such lapses or omissions on the part of the Administration, cannot be taken mileage by the applicant. It is the settled principle of law that by putting holes in the case of the respondents, the applicant will not be able to succeed. He should be able to win the case only on his own strength. There are inherent lacuna in the case of the applicant, he could raise a claim only if a vacancy was available to be filled up. Here, no such situation exists. Resultantly, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed.

No costs.

Dated, 12^th August, 2026) sd/- sd/-

SV List of Annexures in O.A No. 181/00104/2017

Annexure-A12: A true copy of Order F.No.36 /04/2016-Edn/496 dated 22.06.2016.

Annexure-A1. A true copy of S.S.L.C No. 126619 with Register No.307619 Annexure-A2: A true copy of BPE with Register No.CUAGBPE022 dated 03.09.2010.

Annexure-A3: A true copy of Degree of Master of Physical Education Examination with Register No.CUAJMTPO11 dated 13.08.2015.

Annexure-A4: A true copy of Diploma in Sports Coaching in Swimming held in 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015 at Sport Authority of India, Netaji Subhas Southern Centre, Bangalore.

Annexure-A5: A true copy of Lakshadweep Administration Education Department, Coach (Group 'B' Non-Gazetted Non-Ministerial Post) Recruitment Rules, 2006 published by Notification F.No.10/8/2006-Edn.

Annexure-A6. A true copy Order F.No.5/14/89-Edn (Sports) dated 01.06.1995.

Annexure-A7: A true copy of Order F.No.18/21/95-Edn. (2) dated Central Administrative Tribunal^{14.07.1995 issued by the 3rd respondent to the 6th respondent.}

Annexure-A8: A true copy of Caste Certificate F.No 15/1/2002-SDO (AND)/573 dated 27.05.2003 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Androth.

Annexure-A9. A true copy of Representation dated 14.08.2015.

Annexure-A10: A true copy of Representation dated 16.08.2015.

Annexure A-11: A true copy of Order dated 05.02.2016 in O.A. No. 181/00096/2016.

Annexure-A13 A true copy of relieving order F.No. 1/DO(3)/99 DP(A) dated 31.03.2000.

Annexure-A14: A true copy of Office Order F.No.36/21/2008-Edn/191 dated 22.01.2011.

Annexure-A15. A true copy of Office Order F.No. 18/25/2004-Edn/Estt./1833 dated 09.09.2014.

Annexure-A16. A true copy of Non-Liability Certificate showing the date of retirement of Shri K.C. Yousuf, Mechanical Instructor.

Annexure-A17.A true copy of Office Order F.No. 18/46/2007-Edn(Estt)/4690 dated 28.10.2010.

Annexure-A18. A true copy of Office Order F.No. 18/3/2013- Edn (Estt (4)/904 dated 24.02.2014.

Annexure-19. A true copy of Death Certificate dated 25.02.2006 in report of late Shri K.K.P. Muthukokya.

Annexure-A20: A true copy of the letter F. No.6/3/2011-MGSSSA dated 19.08.2016 issued to the father of the applicant, Shri Koyamma, B.

Annexure-A21: A true copy of Letter No. U-14014/3/97 ANL dated 23.06.1998.

Annexure-A22: A true copy of Office Memorandum F.No. 14 (14)-E (COORD)/77 dated 25.10.1977.

Annexures-A23: A true copy of Office Order F.No.18/3/2013-EDN/ESTT(5)/905 dated 24.02.2014.

Annexures-A24: A true copy of Office Order F.NO. 55/26/2000.EDN. dated 29.10.2001.

Annexures-A25: A true copy of F. No. Order F. NO. 18/3/2013-Estt. E. (2)/905 dated 23.11.2015.

Annexures-A26: A true copy of Office Order F. NO.18/17/91-EDN. Dated 10.11.1997.

Annexures-A27: Order F. No. 18/32/2003-EDN/ESTT(3) Dated 21.7.2004.

Annexures-A28: Office Order F. No. 18/19/2011-EDN/ESTT VO.I Dated 01.03.2013.

******