IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 19678 of 2008(P) --------------------------------------- IA 678/07 IN AS.94/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI OS.86/2000 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.P.NAFEESSA UMMA, W/O. C.T.KUNHIMOHAMMED, D/O. LATE TSS.P.KUNHIPPU @ UNNI MAMMED, VELLAPPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADVS.MR.VINOD RAVINDRANATH MR.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. T.P.KADEEJA, D/O. LATE AHAMMED @ BAPPU HAJI, THAZHATHEPEEDIKAKKAL, KEEZHATTUR VILLAGE, PERINTALMANNA TALUK, PARAMBOOR P.O., PATTIKKAD, PIN. 679325. 2. T. P.UMMUSELMA, W/O. DR.A.ABOOBACKER, ARANCHIKKAL HOUSE, MUTTOM, THAYIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA, PIN 683 106. 3. T.P. PATHUMMA, D/O. LATE T.P.AHAMMED @ BAPPU HAJI, PERINTHALMANNA TLAUK, PATHAYAPURAKKAL HOUSE, KEEZHATTUR VILLAGE, PARAMBOOR, P.O. PATTIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN. 679 325. W.P.(C) NO.19678/2008 4. T.P. MUHAMMED @ MANU, S/O. LATE TSS.P.AHAMMED @ BAPPU HAJI, THAZHATHEPEEDIKAKKAL, PATHAYAPURAKKAL HOUSE, KEEZHATTUR VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PARAMBOOR, P.O. PATTIKKAD, PIN 679 325. 5. T.P.YUSUF, TEACHER, AUP SCHOOL, VELLIYANCHERI, VELLIYANCHERI P.O., VIA MELATTUR PIN 679 325, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. T.P.UMMERKUTTY, S/O. LATE AHAMMED @ BAPPU HAJI, THAZHATHEPEEDIKAKKAL, KEEZHATTUR VILLAGE, PERINTALMANNA TLAUK, PARAMBOOR, P.O. PATTIKKAD, PIN 679 325. 7. PARAMBUR PATHUMMAKUTTY, D/O. LATE AHAMMED @ BAPPU HAJI, THAZHATHEPEEDIKAKKAL, KEEZHATTUR VILLAGE, PERINTALMANNA TALUK, PARAMBOOR, P.O. PATTIKKAD, PIN 679 325. 8. T.P.ABOOBACKER, S/O. KUNHIPPU @ UNNIMAMMED, EDAPPATTA AMSOM, VELLIYANCHERI P.O., MELATTUR VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 9. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DISTRICT COKKECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 10. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 11. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MELATTUR. ADDL. 12 TO 15 ARE IMPLEADED. 12. P.K.ANAS, S/O. MUHAMMED, TEACHER, VELLIANCHERY AUP SCHOOL, P.O. VELLIANCHERRY, VIA MELATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 13. SATHEESH KUMAR A., S/O. SANKARAN, TEACHER, VELLIANCHERY AUP SCHOOL, P.O. VELLIANCHERRY, VIA MELATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 14. FAISAL BABU AGED 23, S/O. ABDUL ASEEZ, TEACHER, VELLIANCHERY AUP SCHOOL , P.O. VELLIANCHERRY, VIA MELATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C) NO.19678/2008 15. ABDUL SALAM 27 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, TEACHER, VELLIANCHERRY AUP SCHOOL, P.O., VELLIANCHERRY , VIA MELATTUR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. *ADDL. R 12 TO R15 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.27.1.09 IN IA. NO.322/2009. R1,2,3,5,6,7 BY ADVS.MR.V.A.MUHAMMED, MR.K.E.HAMZA. R4 BY MR.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE R4 BY MR.M.SATHYANATHA MENON R8 BY MR. M.M.ABDUL AZIZ, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, MR.JYOTHISH J.KALLINGAL. R9 -R11 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.SANILKUMAR ADDL. R12 TO R13 BY ADV.MR.P.CHANDRASEKHAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.19678/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUB COURT, MANJERI IN OS. 86/2000 DTD. 14.8.06. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT MANJERI IN IA.862/06 IN AS. 94/06 DTD. 27.10.06. P3:- COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER, DTD. 30.3.07. P4:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM 12TH RESPONDENT DTD. 7.5.07 TO THE PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 9.7.07 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 10TH RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE IA. 678/07 IN AS. 94/06 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI DTD. 21.7.07. P7:- COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE APPELLANTS IN IA. 678/07 DTD. 4.9.07. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 11TH RESPONDENT, DTD. 28.4.07. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT, DT. 18.4.08. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 11TH RESPONDENT DT. 28.4.08. P11:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN RSA. 938/08 DTD. 21.10.08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R4(a):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE D.P.I. R4(b):- COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DT. 18.11.87. R4(c):- COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT DTD. 29.9.06. R4(d):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 13.10.06 IN WPC. 27038/2006 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. R4(e):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18.11.05 IN WPC. 32231/05 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. R4(f):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 5.4.06 IN WPC. 32231/2005 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. W.P.(C) NO.19678/2008 R4(g):- COPY OF THE STUDENT STRENGTH OF THE SCHOOL INCLUDING CLASS IV OF AUPS, VELLIYANCHERI. R4(h):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23.2.2000 IN CRP. 476/2000 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. R10(a):- COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION. R10b):- COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION. R12(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS. C/2389/08 DTD. 16.2.09 OF THE 11TH RESPONDENT. R12(b):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.C/277808 DTD. 16.2.09 OF THE 11TH RESPONDENT. R12(e):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS C/2779/08 DTD. 16.2.09 OF THE 11TH RESPONDENT. R12(d):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS .C/27777/2008 DTD. 16.2.2009 OF THE 11TH RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19678 OF 2008 (P) ===================== Dated this the14th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The dispute raised in this writ petition concerns the managership of the Velliyancheri Aided Upper Primary School (hereinafter referred to as “the school” for short) and the appointment of respondents 12 to 15 as teachers therein. 2. The school was established by one Sri.Unnimammed, who was also the Manager of the school. Sri.Unnimammed had two daughters and two sons and the petitioner herein is one of the daughters. Respondents 1 to 7 are the legal representatives of Sri.Ahammed @ Bappu Haji (hereinafter referred to as “Sri.Bappu Haji” for short), one of the sons of Sri.Unnimammed. 8th respondent is the other son of Sri.Unnimammed. While continuing as Manager of the school, Sri.Unnimammed expired on 18/9/80. 3. Subsequently, Sri.Bappu Haji, one of the sons, applied for approval of himself as Manager. The application was accompanied by consent of the legal heirs of the deceased Manager and involved change of ownership of the school. WPC 19678/08 :2 : Accordingly, the application was considered by the DPI as provided under Chapter III Rule 5A of KER. By Ext.R4(a) proceedings of 1/6/83, the DPI approved the Managership of Sri.Bappu Haji. Sri.Bappu Haji continued as the Manager of the School without any dispute among the legal heirs. Peace prevailed till 2000, when disputes arose among the legal heirs of Sri.Unnimammed. Thereupon, some of the legal heirs filed OS 86/2000 before Sub Court, Manjeri seeking partition of the school property and for preparing a scheme for the management of the school. 4. The suit was contested and rejecting the contention of Sri.Bappu Haji that the other legal heirs having relinquished their title in his favour, the property was not partible, Ext.P1 preliminary decree was passed by the Trial Court on 14/8/06 holding that the school property was partible. Directions for the preparation of a scheme were also issued and Sri.Bappu Haji was allowed to continue as the Manager-cum-correspondent on behalf of the plaintiffs and the second defendant until the scheme is constituted. Sri.Bappu Haji carried the mater in appeal by filing AS 94/06 before the District Court. Along with the appeal, he filed WPC 19678/08 :3 : IA 862/06 seeking stay of the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court and Ext.P2 order was passed by the Appellate Court on 27/10/2006. While the petitioner contends that only that part of the preliminary decree providing for preparation of the scheme was stayed, respondents would contend that the preliminary decree as such was stayed by the District Court. In any case Sri.Bappu Haji continued as the Manager of the School and while so, he expired on 8/11/2006 and respondents 1 to 7 herein are his legal heirs. 5. As a result of the death of Sri.Bappu Haji, the Managership of the school fell vacant. As the Trial Court had already held the property partible by Ext.P1 preliminary decree, since she apprehended that respondents 1 to 7 were trying to get one of them appointed as Manager, petitioner issued Ext.P3 notice to the AEO and DPI on 30/3/2007 requesting them that no legal heir of the deceased Bappu Haji shall be appointed as Manager of the school to her exclusion. It is to be stated that in Ext.P3 notice, no mention of Ext.P2 interim order has been made. Be that as it may, according to respondents 1 to 7, on 9/4/2007, an application was made by the 4th respondent herein, one of the WPC 19678/08 :4 : sons of Sri.Bappu Haji, for approval of himself as the Manager of the school, producing the consent of the other legal heirs of Sri.Bappu Haji. By Ext.P8 order dated 28/4/2007, the AEO returned the application stating that in view of the dispute among the legal heirs, it was not possible for him to grant approval as sought for. 6. Subsequently, on 7/5/2007, the AEO replied to Ext.P3 notice intimating the petitioner that no steps for appointment of Manager has been taken and that he can proceed only in terms of Ext.P1 preliminary decree of the Trial Court. It is noteworthy that in Ext.P4, no mention has been made by the AEO about having received any application for approval of Manager or having issued Ext.P8. According to the 4th respondent, on receipt of Ext.P8, in terms of the provisions contained in Chapter III Rule 4 KER, he filed Ext.R10(a) appeal dated 24/5/2007 to the DPI. According to the petitioner, these developments were not known to her and apparently for that reason, on 9/7/07, Ext.P5 notice was again issued on her behalf to the DPI, requesting not to approve any one among the legal heirs of Sri.Bappu Haji as Manager of the School. WPC 19678/08 :5 : 7. Petitioner submits that there was no response to Ext.P5 notice and that therefore, on 20/7/2007, she filed IA 678/07 in AS 94/06, a copy of this IA is Ext.P6. In this IA, the prayer sought was that a Committee should be appointed by the Court till a scheme is worked out for the management of the school. Respondents 1 to 7 herein filed Ext.P7 dated 4.9.2007 counter affidavit. A reading of para 5 of the counter affidavit shows that they had disclosed about the pendency of an application made by them for approval of one among them as Manager of the school. Inspite of this, no orders were passed by the Appellate Court and according to the petitioner, the Court closed for summer vacation on 9/4/2008. It is alleged that taking advantage of the court vacation, on 18/4/2008, the DPI issued Ext.P9 and the petitioner prefers to describe this as a letter, while the respondents describe it as an order in Ext.R10(a) appeal. Whatever be the nature of it, by Ext.P9, the DPI required the AEO to approve the 4th respondent herein as Manager of the school, on a provisional basis and subject to the outcome of the appeal that was then pending before the District Court. It is stated in Ext.P9 that such an arrangement was necessary to remove the vacuum prevailing WPC 19678/08 :6 : in the management of the school. Accordingly, AEO passed Ext.P10 order dated 28/4/2008, exercising his powers under Chapter III Rule 4 of the KER, approving the 4th respondent as the Manager of the school. Petitioner's case is that only then did she come to know about Ext.P8, Ext.R10(a) appeal and Ext.P9 and it is with these allegations, this writ petition was filed on 30/6/2008. 8. On 2/7/2008, the writ petition came up for orders and this Court passed an order staying Ext.P10 order for a period of one month. In the meanwhile, as is evident from the above, the 4th respondent was functioning as the Manager till 2/7/08 and while so, on 2/6/08, he appointed respondents 12 to 15 as UPSAs in the school. Petitioner thereupon moved this Court and on 14/7/2008, an order was passed directing that the appointments made shall not be approved. The position continues even as on today. 9. During the pendency of the writ petition, on 29/9/2008, District Court dismissed AS 94/06 originally filed by late Sri.Bappu Haji and on his death, prosecuted by his legal representatives. They also filed RSA 938/08 which was also dismissed as per Ext.P11 judgment rendered by this Court on 21/10/2008. It is to WPC 19678/08 :7 : be noted here that in Ext.P11 judgment, while dismissing RSA No.938/08, this Court appointed the 8th respondent, the only surviving son of Sri.Unnimammed, who was defendant No.2 in the suit, as Manager of the School until and subject to finalisation of the proceedings in the Suit. For completion of facts, it is also to be stated that on 24/7/2009, this Court taking into account the complaint of the petitioner regarding the manner in which Ext.P9 referred to above was issued by the DPI, called upon the author of Ext.P9 to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances in which Ext.P9 was issued. Accordingly, an affidavit dated 17/8/09 was filed, followed by a further affidavit dated 21/8/09. 10. Although in the writ petition, the challenge was against Exts.P9 and P10 and the appointment of respondents 12 to 15, in view of the subsequent developments resulting in the dismissal of AS 94/06, and its confirmation in Ext.P11 judgment in RSA 938/08, Exts.P9 and P10 have already been rendered invalid and hence the prayers against these orders do not survive any longer for consideration. Therefore, at this stage, the only issue that arises for consideration is whether the appointment of respondents 12 to 15 is liable to be protected inspite of the invalidation of the WPC 19678/08 :8 : Managership of the 4th respondent, who appointed them by extending the benefit of de facto doctrine. In fact, it was only on this controversy, parties joined issue and advanced arguments. 11. While considering the applicability of the de facto doctrine, reference should be made to the judgments rendered by this Court in Padmanabhan Nambiar v. Government of Kerala (1997(2) KLT 725) and Manager, St.Mary's H.S. v. Beji Abraham (2002(1) KLT 406), which were relied on by both sides. Both these cases arose under the Kerala Education Rules and dealt with appointments made in Aided Schools. In Padmanabhan Nambiar's case, prior to approval of Sri.Padmanabhan Nambiar as Manager, the school was managed by one Govindan Nambiar, who ceased to be the Manager of the School on the dismissal of OS No.266/88 filed by him. Prior to the dismissal of the suit, Sri.Govindan Nambiar, in his capacity as Manager of the school, appointed two teachers and the question was whether those two teachers were entitled to protection applying the de facto doctrine. This court held that if Govindan Nambiar could be held to be an usurper or intruder, his acts for all purpose would be treated as void and that if he was acting as a de facto Manager WPC 19678/08 :9 : and his appointment was found defective only in some particulars and subsequently, it cannot be said that he was a mere usurper to render his acts void. Reference has been made to commentary in Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, Eighth Edition Volume II and it was held that: “if an officer has got colour or sembalance of some right to hold office but holding office without actual right due to some legal impediment or the appointment as such lacks certain legal requirements whatever duties performed by him with public acquiescence have to be approved, whereas the action done by an intruder who attempts to perform duties without the authority of law and without the support of public acquiescence cannot claim validity. Merely because, there was defect in the appointment of the officer all the duties performed by such officer do not become void or illegal. The de facto doctrine will come to rescue under such circumstances”. Thereafter the following precedents were noticed in paras 7 to 10 of the judgment. 7. In Re James (An insolvent) (1977) 2 W.L.R.1, Lord Denning M.R., while discussing about the validity of an order passed by a Judge who was not validly appointed, it was observed thus: “He sits in the seat of a Judge. He wears the robes of a Judge. He holds the office of a Judge. May be he was not validly appointed. But, still, he holds the office. It is the office that matters, not the incumbent........his orders not a nullity. If they are erroneous they may be upset on appeal. But if not erroneous they should be upheld”. 8. The de facto doctrine has been recognised by Indian Courts in a series of decisions. In Pulin Bhehari v. King Emperor (1912-15 Cal JL 517) Sir Asuthosh Mukerjee, J. made the following observation: “The substance of the matter is that the de facto doctrine was introduced into the law as a matter of policy and necessity, to protect the interest of the public and the individual where these WPC 19678/08 :10 : interests were involved in the official acts of persons exercising the duties of an office without being lawful officers. The doctrine in fact is necessary to maintain the supremacy of the law and to preserve peace and order in the community at large. Indeed, if any individual or body of individuals wee permitted, at his or their pleasure, to collaterally challenge the authority of and to refuse obedience to the Government of the State and the numerous functionaries through whom it exercised its various powers on the ground of irregular existence or defective title, insubordination and disorder of the worst kind would be encouraged. For the good order and peace of society, their authority must be upheld until in some regular mode their title is directly investigated and determined”. 9. In a decision reported in P.S.Menon v. State of Kerala (AIR 1970 Ker 165) a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court spoke about the de facto doctrine, which reads: “This doctrine was engrafted as a matter of policy and necessity to protect the interest of the public and individuals involved in the official acts of persons exercising the duty of an officer without actually being one in strict point of law. But although these officers are not officers de jure they are by virtue of the particular circumstances, officers, in fact, whose acts, public policy required should be considered valid”. 10. In Gokaraju Rangaraju v.State of A.P.(AIR 1981 SC 1473) the question whether the judgment pronounced by a Sessions Judge was invalid for the reason that the appointment of the Sessions Judge was found to be illegal as it was in violation of Art.233 of the Constitution. The Court held: “The de facto doctrine is now well established that the acts of the Officers de facto performed by them within the scope of their assumed official authority, in the interest of the public or third persons and not for their own benefit, are generally as valid and binding, as if they were the acts of officers de jure”. Applying the legal position as above, this Court held that de facto doctrine can be suitably applied to the facts of the case. 12. In so far as the case in Manager, St.Mary's H.S. v. Beji Abraham (2002(1) KLT 406) is concerned, that was a case where the Manager, who appointed the teacher, was WPC 19678/08 :11 : subsequently found to have been invalidly elected. Despite this, the Court held that the mere fact that the appointment of the Manager was subsequently found illegal or irregular could not take away the rights of the appointees, and that as far as the appointees are concerned, they are appointed by an approved Manager and that they are not concerned with the dispute with regard to the Managership of the school. Therefore, applying the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Padmanabhan Nambiar that even if there is some illegality or irregularity in the managership, action taken by the Manager during the period of his Managership could not be held illegal or irregular, the appointments were upheld. Although, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner strenuously attempted to distinguish these cases, I do not find any reason to think why the principles laid down in these judgments are inapplicable to the facts of this case. 13. Bearing in mind the principles thus laid down in the aforesaid judgments, what is to be decided is whether the 4th respondent was an usurper or intruder in the office of Manager of the school during the period till 2/7/08, when this court passed an interim order of stay in this writ petition. This question can be WPC 19678/08 :12 : answered only if the following relevant facts are appreciated. 14. As already seen, by Ext.R4(a), the DPI approved the appointment of Sri.Bappu Haji as Manager of the School, with change of ownership, exercising his powers under Chapter III Rule 5A of KER. Although it was his case that other legal heirs of the deceased Sri.Unnimammed had relinquished their rights over the properties in his favour, overruling the objections, Ext.P1 preliminary decree was passed by the Trial Court. In view of the preliminary decree thus passed, though the sanctity of Ext.R4(a) to the extent it involves change of ownership is lost, according to the party respondents, having regard to the fact that by Ext.P2 order passed by the District Court in IA 862/06, Ext.R4(a) was revived and it was on that basis Sri.Bappu Haji continued as Manager to the exclusion of other legal heirs of Sri.Unnimammed. 15. This contention of the respondents was contradicted by the counsel for the petitioner contending that Ext.P2 stay order passed by the Appellate Court was only to the extent preliminary decree dealt with the preparation of the scheme. It is contended that Sri.Bappu Haji, continued as Manager only because Ext.P1 preliminary decree permitted his continuance and that part of the WPC 19678/08 :13 : decree remained operative throughout. However, on a reading of the order in its entirety, I am inclined to take the view that the counsel for the respondents are right in contending that the decree as such has been stayed. In any case, Ext.P2 order was capable of being understood as above and that is how the DPI has also understood the order. It has been so stated in the affidavits filed by him. If the manner in which the order has been understood, is a plausible one, this Court will not be justified in interfering with such a view, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. If it is accepted that the decree as such was stayed by the appellate court as per Ext.P2 order, Ext.R4(a) was revived and if so, it was on that basis that Sri.Bappu Haji continued as Manager of the school until his death on 8/11/06. It is seen from the records that on 9/4/2007, the 4th respondent, one of the legal representatives of Sri.Bappu Haji, sought for approval of his managership and that the request was accompanied by the consent of the other legal heirs of Sri.Bappu Haji. It was that request, which was returned by the AEO as per Ext.P8, against which Ext.R10(a) appeal was filed before the DPI on 24/5/2007. WPC 19678/08 :14 : Although, it is true that in Ext.P4 reply given by the AEO, and there is no mention of Ext.P8 and thus the genuineness of Ext.P8 as well as Ext.R10(a) is, at the first blush open to doubt. However, the fact that in Ext.P7 counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 7 in IA No.678/07, they had disclosed the pendency of their application for approval of Managership, persuades me not to think that Ext.P8 and Ext.R10(a) are not genuine. If that be so, Ext.R4(a) order of approval continued to hold the field until the dismissal of AS No.94/06. I also cannot find fault with the DPI in deciding Ext.R10(a) appeal without issuing notice to the petitioner or the other legal heirs of Sri.Unnimammed or for not sending copies of Ext.P10 to them. This is for the reason that going by Ext.R4(a), there was change of ownership of the school and if that be so, the other legal heirs including the petitioner were divested of their ownership over the properties. If so, Ext.P9, and Ext.P10, the consequential order approving the 4th respondent as Manager, cannot be faulted and this position governed the parties till 29/9/08 when AS 94/06 was dismissed by the District Court, Manjeri. 17. In the light of the above facts, the approval of WPC 19678/08 :15 : appointment of the 4th respondent was pursuant to Exts.P9 and P10 orders, which were invalidated only subsequently, i.,e, on 29/9/08. For this reason, I am