IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 11TH BHADRA, 1944
WA NO. 564 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2021 IN WP(C) 30256/2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDNETS 1 & 3 TO 9:

1 BIJU P.S.,
AGED 45 YEARS,
TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II),
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.
2 SINDHUMOL.A,
TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II),
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.
3 ANILKUMAR P.S,
TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II),
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.
4 MAYAKRISHNAN,
TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II),
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.
5 PREMJITH P.D,
TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II),
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.
6 ROMISON M.J,
TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II),
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.
7 BINDHU ANTONY,
TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II),
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.
8 ARAVIND.K.S,
TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II),
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.
BY ADVS.
K.SASIKUMAR
SRI.S.ARAVIND
SRI.P.S.RAGHUKUMAR
Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 2 :-

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVT, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVT.
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 CENTRE FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION,
KERALA ANATHARA LANE, CHARACHIRA, KOWDIAR P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, PIN-695 003.
4 PRINCIPAL,
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR-685 612.
BY ADVS.
SMT.B.VINITHA SR GP
SMT.LATHA ANAND

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

02.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 3 :-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.

-----------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2022.

JUDGMENT

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

22.02.2021 in W.P.(C) No.30256 of 2018. The appellants were

petitioners 1 and 3 to 9 in the writ petition. Parties are referred

to in this judgement for convenience, as they appear in the writ

petition.

2. The petitioners are working as Instructors

Grade II in the College of Engineering, Munnar (the College) run

by the third respondent, the Centre for Continuing Education

(the CCEK), an autonomous body set up by the State

Government to establish and run Centres in the field of

education. The dispute relates to the right of the petitioners to

Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 4 :-

claim the benefits of the recommendations of the Ninth Pay

Revision Commission appointed by the State Government for

revision of the pay and other benefits of the similarly placed

State Government employees, which was implemented as per

Ext.P17 order for the State Government employees with effect

from 01.07.2009.

3. It is stated by the petitioners in the writ

petition that even though the Executive Committee of the CCEK

has decided to extend the benefits of Ext.P17 order to the staff

of the College, the State Government has refused to accord

permission for the same in terms of Ext.P35 order, taking the

stand that Ext.P17 order would apply only to State Government

employees. According to the petitioners, Ext.P35 order is illegal

inasmuch as they are entitled to the pay scales as granted by

the State Government to its employees in the Department of

Technical Education, in terms of their conditions of service. The

petitioners have, therefore, approached this court in the writ

petition challenging Ext.P35 order. It is alleged by the

petitioners in the writ petition that the Government has

extended the benefits of Ext.P17 order to two employees of the

College as per Exts.P32 and P33 orders, and the stand taken by
Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 5 :-

the Government in Ext.P35 order to deny the said benefits to

the petitioners is therefore, discriminatory. The petitioners

therefore, claimed in the writ petition, directions to the

Government to accord permission to the CCEK to extend to the

staff of the College, the benefits of the recommendations of the

Ninth Pay Revision Commission, as also the recommendations

of the Tenth Pay Revision Commission, which was implemented

in the meanwhile by the State Government for the State

Government employees as per Ext.P31 order dated

20.01.2016.

4. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned

Single Judge at the admission stage itself taking the view that

the petitioners have not placed on record any material to show

that they are entitled to the benefits of the recommendations

of the Pay Revision Commissions constituted by the

Government for revision of the pay and other benefits of the

State Government employees. The appeal is against the said

decision of the learned Single Judge.

5. Since the writ petition was dismissed at the

admission stage itself, a counter affidavit has been filed in the

writ appeal on behalf of the State reiterating the stand in

Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 6 :-

Ext.P35 Government Order. It was contended by the State in

the counter affidavit that the CCEK and its sub-centres were

constituted as autonomous bodies and as such, the College has

to sustain itself on the income generated by it.

6. A reply affidavit has been filed by the

petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by the State stating,

among others, that there are other autonomous bodies which

are also running engineering colleges under the Higher

Education Department of the State Government; that the staff

of the engineering colleges run by such bodies have been

extended the benefits of Exts.P17 and P31 orders and there is

therefore no justification for denying the said benefits to the

staff of the College run by the CCEK.

7. A statement has been filed on behalf of the

CCEK in the writ appeal. It is stated, among others, in the said

statement that the College is only a self financing institution

which has to sustain itself on the income generated through the

fees collected from the students; that the College is facing

acute financial constraints and not in a position to disburse

salary to its staff; that the College is being run presently on the

funds provided by the CCEK; that the CCEK has disbursed to

Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 7 :-

the College a sum of Rs.11,31,17,671/- between November,

2016 and July, 2021 and the CCEK is not in a position to provide

any further financial assistance to the College.

8. The writ appeal was heard in part on

22.07.2022. On hearing the parties for sometime, this court

felt that there is no satisfactory explanation in the affidavit filed

on behalf of the State Government as to the disparity in the

fund allocations made by the State Government to the CCEK,

the Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD) and to

LBS Centre for Science and Technology (LBS Centre) which are

similar autonomous bodies running engineering colleges. The

learned Government Pleader who was appearing for the State

in the matter then undertook to place on record an additional

affidavit explaining the said disparity and accordingly an

additional affidavit has been filed by the State in the matter on

03.08.2022. The essence of the additional affidavit is that IHRD

is running nine engineering colleges and LBS Centre is running

two engineering colleges; that even those organisations are not

able to sustain themselves with the funds generated by them

and that the Government is extending to all the organisations

financial assistance only by way of loans. It is also stated in the

Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 8 :-

said affidavit that since the College is not able to run on its

own, the Executive Committee of the CCEK has decided to

progressively close down the College and that the proposal

submitted by the CCEK for the said purpose is under

consideration.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

the learned Standing Counsel for the CCEK as also the learned

Government Pleader.

10. The specific pleading of the petitioners in the

writ petition was that the CCEK is willing and capable of

extending to the staff of the College the benefits claimed by

them; that formal permission of the State Government is

required for the same and that the State Government has

denied the permission on the ground that the petitioners are

not entitled to the benefits claimed. It is seen that having

realised in the course of the proceedings that even the CCEK

has exhausted its resources by supporting the College and that

the benefits claimed by the petitioners could be received only if

the State Government extends financial aid to the CCEK, the

argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners

at the time of hearing was that insofar as the benefit has been
Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 9 :-

extended by IHRD and LBS Centre to the staff of the

engineering colleges run by them with the financial aid

provided by the State Government, the State is bound to

extend financial aid to the CCEK also to extend the same

benefits to the staff of their College. In order to show that IHRD

and LBS Centre have extended the benefits, the learned

counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice Exts.P44, P46,

P47 and P49 orders issued by the Government, in terms of

which the Government accorded sanction to IHRD and LBS

Centre to extend to the staff of the engineering colleges run by

them, the benefits of the recommendations of the Ninth and

Tenth Pay Revision Commissions, and Exts.P50 and P51 orders,

in terms of which the Government extended financial aid to

IHRD and LBS Centre for disbursement of salary and other

benefits to its employees. It was also argued by the learned

counsel that since the Government has ordered to extend the

benefits of the recommendations of the Ninth Pay Revision

Commission to two employees of the College, at any rate, the

Government cannot deny the benefits to the remaining

similarly placed employees of the College.

11. The learned Government Pleader reiterated the

Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 10 :-

stand taken by the Government in the counter affidavit and

additional counter affidavit filed in the matter. In addition, the

learned Government Pleader has also submitted that Ext.P4

special provisions applicable to the College, which are part of

the conditions of service of the staff of the CCEK, do not confer

any right on the petitioners to claim the benefits of the

recommendations of the Ninth and Tenth Pay Revision

Commissions. The learned Government Pleader has reinforced

the said argument placing reliance on the provisions contained

in the Rules and Regulations for starting sub-centres which are

part of the Memorandum of Association of the CCEK, pointing

out that the College is only a sub-centre under the CCEK.

12. The learned Standing Counsel for the CCEK

supported the submissions made by the learned Government

Pleader. On a query from the court as to the justification for

extending the benefits of the Pay Revision Commissions to two

employees of the College, the submission made by the learned

Standing Counsel is that the employee referred to in Ext.P33

order is presently employed in another organisation which was

earlier part of the CCEK and the same does not in any manner

affect the finances of the CCEK. As regards Ext.P32 order, the

Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 11 :-

learned Standing Counsel was not in a position to give any

satisfactory explanation. He sought further time to get

instructions in that regard.

13. In reply to the submissions made by the

learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the

petitioners asserted that the College is not a sub-centre under

the CCEK, but an institution run by the CCEK itself and the

rules applicable to the sub-centres do not therefore apply to

the College.

14. We have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties on either side.

15. Ext.P42 is the Memorandum of Association and

Rules and Regulations of the CCEK. Ext.P42 contains two parts,

the first part dealing with the Rules and Regulations of the

CCEK and the second part dealing with the Rules and

Regulations of starting sub-centres. Rule I(a) of the Rules and

Regulations of former defines the CCEK thus:

(a). The “Centre” means Centre for Continuing Education, Kerala.

Rule I of the Rules and Regulations of starting sub-centres

reads thus:

I. For the effective implementation of the Continuing Education

Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 12 :-

Programmes, Sub-Centres shall be started in Engineering Colleges,

Polytechnics and Arts and Science Colleges. The Principal, of the
above institutions shall prepare necessary project report and
forward it to the Director, Centre for Continuing Education Kerala,
IV Floor, Rema Plaza, S.S.Kovil Road, Thampanoor,
Thiruvananthapuram-1.

Even though the Centre is defined in the Rules and Regulations

as the Centre for Continuing Education, Kerala, Rule I of the

Rules and Regulations for starting sub-centres would indicate

beyond doubt that an engineering college established and run

by the CCEK was not intended to be a sub-centre, but intended

to be only a part of the CCEK. We take this view also for the

reason that the conditions of service of the staff of the CCEK

which are approved by the Government in terms of Ext.P3 order

takes within its purview the staff of the engineering college run

by the CCEK as well and if the engineering college was one

intended to be a sub-centre, there is no reason why the staff of

the engineering college should be brought under the purview of

the conditions of service formulated for the staff of the CCEK.

16. As noted, the petitioners claim the benefits of

the recommendations of the Ninth and Tenth Pay Revision

Commissions based on the provisions contained in the special

provisions applicable to the College which are part of the

Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 13 :-

conditions of service of the staff of the CCEK. The clause relied

on by the petitioners for this purpose reads thus:

(D) LIBRARY LABORATORY STAFF; While appointing staff to the

above services on a regular basis the scale of pay admissible to
such posts in the Department of Technical Education, Government
of Kerala shall be followed.

But it is seen that it is stated in clause (C) of the special

provisions that the College being a self-financing institution,

wholly sustaining on the income generated through its efforts,

it shall strive to provide the maximum possible financial

package to its staff in proportion to the income generated. The

relevant clause reads thus:

(C) STAFF PATTERN; Staff pattern shall be as per the norms

prescribed by the AICTE. Being a self financing institution wholly
sustaining on the income generated through its efforts, it shall
strive to provide the maximum possible financial package to the
staff in proportion to the income generated.

A combined reading of the clauses referred to above would

indicate beyond doubt that the entitlement of the staff of the

College is only a pay package in proportion to the income

generated by the college. In other words, the obligation of the

CCEK to extend to the staff of the College the scale of pay

admissible to such posts in the Department of Technical

Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 14 :-

Education arises only if the CCEK could afford the same, having

regard to the income generated by it. The special provisions

applicable to the College do not, therefore, confer on the staff

of the College a right to claim the scale of pay at par with the

scale of pay applicable to such posts in the Department of

Technical Education.

17. The surviving question is as to whether the

State has any obligation to extend to the staff of the College

the benefits of the recommendations of the Pay Revision

Commissions. The materials on record indicate that the CCEK is

only an autonomous body caused to be registered by the

Government as a society under the Travancore-Cochin Literary,

Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act for

establishing and running Centres for Continuing Education. The

intention behind establishing such a body seems to be that the

State wanted to make available facilities for higher education

at affordable cost without incurring any financial liability so as

to discharge its constitutional obligations in the field of higher

education, and at the same time, by retaining a pervasive

control over the same. Being an entity constituted by the

State, the State has certainly a duty to manage the affairs of

Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 15 :-

such bodies to ensure that they serve its desired purpose.

Similarly, insofar as the State retains a pervasive control over

the affairs of the CCEK, its actions shall be fair, just and

reasonable and shall not be arbitrary. True, the State

Government is extending financial aid to such bodies by way of

loans for their establishment and to ensure their existence.

But, that does not mean that the State is legally obliged to

discharge all its financial obligations. In other words, the

petitioners who are only employees of a self-financing

institution run by the CCEK cannot be heard to contend that the

State has any obligation to treat the petitioners at par with the

State Government employees by extending to them the

benefits of the recommendations of the Pay Revision

Commissions. This position has been reiterated by the Apex

Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan, (2022) 4 SCC

193. Paragraph 26 of the judgment in the said case reads thus:

26. As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of

decisions, the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot
claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on a
par with the government employees. Merely because such
autonomous bodies might have adopted the Government
Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council there may be
Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 16 :-

a representative of the Government and/or merely because

such institution is funded by the State/Central Government,
employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter
of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government
employees. This is more particularly, when the employees of
such autonomous bodies are governed by their own Service
Rules and service conditions. The State Government and the
autonomous Board/body cannot be put on a par.

For the aforesaid reason, the petitioners cannot also be heard

to contend that merely for the reason that the State

Government has permitted similarly placed autonomous bodies

to extend to its employees benefits of the recommendations of

the Pay Revision Commissions, the State Government is obliged

under law to extend the same benefits to the staff of the

college run by the CCEK as well, for there will be umpteen

reasons for an executive government to take such decisions

and in the absence of any malice attributed to the State

Government for not treating the CCEK at par with other similar

autonomous bodies, it is unnecessary for the Court to delve

deep into those reasons.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not

controvert the submission made by the Standing Counsel for

Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 17 :-

the CCEK that the employee referred to in Ext.P33 order is

presently employed in another organisation which was earlier

part of the CCEK and the same does not in any manner affect

the finances of the CCEK. As noted, the Standing Counsel was

not in a position to give any satisfactory justification for the

Government extending the benefits of the recommendations of

the Ninth Pay Revision Commission to the staff of the college

referred to in Ext.P32 order. A perusal of Ext.P32 order

indicates that in terms of an order earlier passed, the

Government permitted the CCEK to absorb the said staff

member who was earlier working in another body namely

Malabar Cancer Centre, in the CCEK in the post of

Superintendent after terminating his lien in Malabar Cancer

Centre without incorporating specific terms and conditions. As

per Ext.P32 order, it is seen that the Government has only

approved the decision of the CCEK to give him a particular

scale of pay as provided for in the recommendations of the

Ninth Pay Revision Commission. The said order cannot be

understood as an order extending the benefits of the Ninth Pay

Revision Commission to one of the staff members of the

College. The argument advanced on the strength of Ext.P32

Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 18 :-

order also, therefore fails.

In the light of the discussion aforesaid, there is no

merit in the writ appeal and the same is, accordingly,

dismissed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

Sd/-

C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.

ds 26.08.2022
Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 19 :-

APPENDIX
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) G.O.(Rt)No. 724/2022/H.Edn. dated,
19.05.2022
Annexure R1(b) True copy of the 36th Executive
meeting of CCEK held on 06.08.2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P36. A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4-12-
2013 FORWARDED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P37 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-11-
2013 FORWARDED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P38 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
4/3/2013 FORWARDED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P39 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-1-
2014 FORWARDED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P40 A FULL TEXT OF THE MINUTES OF 28TH
MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 5-4-2014
Exhibit P41 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-7-
2014 FORWARDED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P42 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
ASSOCIATION AND RULES AND REGULATIONS
FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT CENTRE FOR
CONTINUING EDUCATION KERALA,
Exhibit P43 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-12-
2020 FORWARDED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P44 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 9-12-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT EXTENDING THE BENEFIT OF
9TH PAY REVISION TO THE EMPLOYEES OF
THE IHRD AND INSTITUTIONS.
Exhibit P45 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 17-
12-2014 ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 20 :-

Exhibit P46 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER

DATED 28-2-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT EXTENDING THE BENEFITS OF
THE 9TH PAY REVISION TO THE EMPLOYEES
OF LBS CENTRE & ENGINEERING COLLEGES.
Exhibit P47 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 13-11-2019 EXTENDING THE
BENEFITS OF 10TH PAY REVISION TO THE
EMPLOYEES OF IHRD AND ALLIED
INSTITUTIONS
Exhibit P48 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
31-12-2019 ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT.
Exhibit P49 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 4-7-2018 EXTENDING THE BENEFITS
OF 10TH PAY REVISION TO THE EMPLOYEES
OF LBS CENTRE AND ENGINEERING COLLEGES
Exhibit P50 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 6-2-2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P51 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 4-2-2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P52 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17-12-
2020 FORWARDED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR CONTINUING
EDUCATION, KERALA TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P53 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-
10-2019 IN WP-C NO. 31889/2018
Exhibit P54 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 14-1-1987 OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(G) DEPARTMENT ALONG WITH ITS
APPENDIX.
Exhibit P55 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED.
12-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT.
Exhibit P56 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED. 18-3-2022 ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA HIGHER EDUCATION
(G) DEPARTMENT.
Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 21 :-

Exhibit P57 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER

DTD. 20-12-2018
Exhibit P58 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DTD. 26-3-2019 .
Exhibit P59 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DTD. 13-8-2021
Exhibit P60 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DTD. 7-2-2022
Exhibit P61 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DTD. 18-4-2022
Exhibit P62 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DTD. 10-5-2022
Exhibit P63 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DTD. 20-7-2022
Exhibit P64 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED. 4-2-2021 AUTHORIZING AN
ADDITIONAL PAYMENT OF RUPEES TWO
CRORES TO THE LBS CENTRE FOR MEETING
THE SALARY AND ALLOWANCES OF THEIR
STAFF.
Exhibit P65 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT.) NO.
1719/2022/GAD DATED 26-4-2022