IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9039 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- U.SHARAFALI, DEPUTY COMMANDANT, MALABAR SPECIAL POLICE, MALAPPURAM. BY SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED: 3. V. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. P.C. VELAYUDHAN, DEPUTY COMMANDANT, KERALA ARMED POLICE II BATTALION, MUTTIKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. *IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT. 04/06/09 IN I.A. NO. 6526/09. **ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED: 4. P.S. ABDUL RAZAK, DEPUTY COMMANDANT OF POLICE, KERALA ARMED POLICE 5TH BATTALLION, MANIYAR.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. **IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 14/01/10 IN I.A. 15/10. ***ADDL.R5 & R6 IMPLEADED: 5. C. SOFY, DEPUTY COMMANDANT, KAP BATTALION, ADOOR PATHANAMTHITTA. W.P.(C). NO.9039/2009-Y: 6. K.K. PREMACHANDRAN, DEPUTY COMMANDANT, SAP, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ***IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT. 21/05/10 IN I.A. NO. 6028/10. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR, ADDL.R3 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV.SRI.S.SUJIN, ADDL.R4 BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV.SRI.ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA, ADDL.R5 & R6 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV.SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 17479 OF 2005, THE COURT ON 17/06/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.9039/2009-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA DTD. 01/01/1988. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 14/5/1993 G.O.(R6) 1487/93/H. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE SELECT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE D.P.C. FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT COMMANDANT DTD. 12/06/1996 G.O.(RT).1279/96/H. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 26/09/1998 G.O.(RT). 4205/98/H. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 20/07/1999 G.O.(RT) 3729/99/H. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 08/03/1994 G.O.(RT). 423/94.H. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 31/08/1994 G.O.(RT). 1708/94/H. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 29/01/1995 G.O.(RT). 2504/95/H. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 30/06/2004 G.O.(RT). 14/06/04/H. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 12706/94 DTD. 08/02/2006. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 8940/94 DTD. 11/08/1995. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 3733/94 DTD. 12/02/2004. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 19716/95 DTD. 26/03/2003. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO.6668/96 DTD. 17/02/2003. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DTD. 09/12/2008. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. DT. 01/01/2009. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 06/03/2009. EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 06/03/2009. EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.26783/2007 DTD. 27/05/2009. EXT.P.20: COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION FILED BY THE R.3. IN O.P. NO. 12706/94. EXT.P.21: COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION FILED BY THE R.3. IN R.P. NO. 419/1995. EXT.P.22: COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DTD. 27/05/1999. W.P.(C). NO.9039/2009-Y: EXT.P.23: TYPED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A. 474/97 AND 424/97. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: G.O.(RT).NO.1699/05/HOME DTD. 07/07/05. EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SPORTS/62883/84 DTD. 14/08/1984 ISSUED BY DGP, KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 731/86 DTD. 05/12/1986 ISSUED BY THE DGP, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R3.C: COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES, 1984 FOR KERALA POLICE SUBORDINATE SERVICE (ARMED POLICE BATTALION). EXT.R3.D: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DIG OF POLICE DTD. 24/03/2003. EXT.R3.E: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10/06/2005 IN W.P.(C).NO.17479/2005 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 682 DTD. 30/12/2008. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT).3384/09/HOME DTD. 13/11/2009. EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE RE-APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 14/08/1984 ISSUED BY THE R.2, APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS APASI. EXT.R5.B: COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DTD. 30/08/1994 BEARING NO. GO(RT). NO.1690/94/HOME PASSED BY THE R.1. DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER REGARDING DECLARING HIM AS DESERTER. EXT.R5.C: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 24/03/2003 ISSUED BY THE D.I.G.(APBN) TO D.G.P. EXT.R5.D: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 29/05/2003 ISSUED BY THE D.I.G. (APBN) TO D.G.P. EXT.R5.E: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO(RT).NO.843/06/HOME DTD. 30/03/2006 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA FOR CONSTITUTING A GOVERNMENT LEVEL COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE THE FINANCIAL AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS OF THE EXT.R5 (F) RECOMMENDATION. EXT.R5.F: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 11/03/2005 OF HIGH LEVEL COMMITTEE UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF ADGP (TRAINING). //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.9039/09 & 17479/05 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The issues raised in these writ petitions are connected, and therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. WP(C) No.9039/2009 2. The main prayer in WP(c).No.9039/09 is to quash Exts.P15, P17 and P18 and to declare that since the petitioner who was absorbed in the regular vacancy of Deputy Commandant and regularized in that post, respondents have no power or authority to treat him supernumerary in the post of Deputy Commandant. 3. In so far as it is relevant, the facts of this case are that, by Ext.P2 order dated 14.5.1993, the petitioner was temporarily promoted as Assistant Commandant invoking the power under Rule 31(a)(1) of the General Rules. While continuing so, the DPC held on 25.4.1996, prepared select list for appointment to the post of Deputy Commandant and the petitioner was included in Ext.P3, the select list for the year 1993. WPC.No. 9039/09& anor. :2 : Subsequently, Government issued Ext.P4 order dated 26.9.1998, regularizing the petitioner's promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant with effect from 1.6.1993. Subsequently, by Ext.P5 order dated 20.7.1999, his probation in the post of Assistant Commandant was declared with effect from 7.6.1994. 4. Meanwhile, Ext.P6 order dated 8.3.1994 was issued by the Government, again invoking its power under Rule 39 of the General Rules, and promoting five police officers, who were members of the Kerala State Football Team which had won Santhosh Trophy in the year 1993. By this order, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant. On being communicated of Ext.P6 order, the Director General of Police reported to the Government by his letter dated 7.4.1994 that there was no vacancy of Deputy Commandant. The matter was considered and the Government issued Ext.P7 order dated 31.8.1994, conveying its decision to create one supernumerary post of Deputy Commandant in the Armed Police Battalion and ordering that the petitioner will be posted in the post so created. It was further ordered that the petitioner will be absorbed in the next arising regular vacancy, abolishing the supernumerary post. 5. Thereafter, by Ext.P8 order dated 29.1.1995, the petitioner was posted in a regular vacancy of Deputy WPC.No. 9039/09& anor. :3 : Commandant. A reading of this order shows that such posting of the petitioner was subject to further orders of this court in O.P.No.12706/94 which was pending then. In the meanwhile, petitioner also approached this court in O.P.No.8940/94 seeking a direction to the respondents for his expeditious regularization as Deputy Commandant. That Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P11 judgment dated 11.8.1995 recording the submission made by the respondents therein, undertaking to regularize the petitioner. Based on all the above, Ext.P9 order dated 30.6.2004 was issued regularizing the petitioner in the post of Deputy Commandant, with effect from 1.11.1994. This order was again subject to the final disposal of O.P.No.12706/04. Accordingly the petitioner's services were regularized and he was continuing as Deputy Commandant in the Armed Police Battalion. 6. O.P.No.12706/1994 mentioned above was filed by two Assistant Commandants in the Special Armed Police challenging Ext.P6 order whereby invoking Rule 39 of the General Rules, the petitioner was ordered to be promoted as Deputy Commandant. By Ext.P10 judgment rendered on 8.2.2006, the Original Petition was permitted to be withdrawn and was accordingly dismissed. The judgment shows that as far as the 1st petitioner therein was concerned, the Original Petition had become infructuous and that WPC.No. 9039/09& anor. :4 : in view of the subsequent developments, the second petitioner therein could not pursue the Original Petition and he sought to withdraw the writ petition. While dismissing the writ petition, it was clarified that, rights if any of the second petitioner to challenge the regularization of the promotion granted to the petitioner will not be affected by the withdrawal and dismissal of the Original Petition and his contentions were left open to be urged in appropriate proceedings. It is the admitted position that the second petitioner in O.P.No.12706/94 did not institute any proceedings thereafter. 7. There was yet another Original Petition as O.P.No.3733/94, which was filed by five other Assistant Commandants with the petitioner as 3rd respondent, in which challenge was against Ext.P6 order referred to above and Ext.P8 order absorbing the petitioner in the regular vacancy. By Ext.P12 judgment rendered on 12th February, 2004, following the judgments in O.P.Nos.19716/95 and 6668/96, copies of which are Ext.P13 and P14 respectively, this court dismissed the Original Petition upholding the validity of Exts.P6 and P8 orders. It is stated that an application filed seeking review of this judgment was also dismissed by this Court. In this context, it should be mentioned that in O.P.No.19716/1995, though the petitioner was WPC.No. 9039/09& anor. :5 : not a party, four other beneficiaries of Exts.P6 and P8 orders were parties and this court upheld the orders impugned therein. 8. Thus though the petitioner's promotion as Assistant Commandant was initially on temporary basis, he was regularized in the post by Ext.P4 order. He completed probation and was promoted as Deputy Commandant, by Ext.P6 invoking Rule 39 of the General Rules and was accommodated in a supernumerary post created by Ext.P7 order. He was thereafter absorbed in a regular vacancy by Ext.P8 order and was regularized with effect from 1.11.1994 as per Ext.P9 order. These orders were challenged before this court and were upheld by this court in the judgments referred to above. 9. Subsequently, Ext.P15 notice dated 9.12.2008 was issued by the Director General of Police calling upon the petitioner to show cause against placing him in a supernumerary post, to be absorbed in the regular service on occurrence of vacancies in the sports quota and stating that if no vacancies arise in the sports quota, such officers will retire as supernumerary. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Ext.P16 objection. Again Ext.P17 notice was issued calling for objections in the matter and thereafter Ext.P18 provisional seniority list was published. In the provisional seniority list, petitioner was shown as a Deputy Commandant, holding a WPC.No. 9039/09& anor. :6 : supernumerary post . It was thereupon that this writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned earlier. 10. The contention of the Sr. Counsel for petitioner is that his service having been regularized invoking Rule 39 of the General Rules and after absorbing him in a regular vacancy of Deputy Commandant, the proposal now initiated to include him in the provisional seniority list, as a supernumerary, is illegal. It is stated that the Director General of Police, who issued the impugned proceedings had no jurisdiction to have reviewed the Government orders and that therefore the impugned proceedings being ultra vires and without jurisdiction, is open to challenge even at this stage before this court. 11. On the other hand, relying on the judgment of this court in Koyit Joseph & Ors. V. Subash George & Ors. (2006 (3)Kerala 162), learned Government Pleader contended for the position that invocation of Rule 39 of the General Rules on the basis of which Exts.P6 to P9 orders were issued itself was illegal. He therefore contended that the respondents were justified in proposing to revise the seniority of the petitioner treating him as holding a supernumerary post. 12. Additional party respondents contended that, what were impugned in this writ petition are a show cause notice and a WPC.No. 9039/09& anor. :7 : provisional seniority list. It was contended that it was upto the petitioner to file his objections to the provisional seniority list and invoke this court's jurisdiction only after the the provisional seniority list is finalized to his prejudice. It was stated therefore that the writ petition is premature and was not maintainable. It is further contended that, if relief is granted to the petitioner and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to hold a regular post on the strength of Exts.P6 to P9, that will adversely affect the seniority and further promotional avenues of several Deputy Commandants in service and that those Deputy Commandants who are likely to be affected by such an order should have been impleaded in this writ petition. Therefore, according to him, the writ petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the party respondents also relied on the Apex Court judgment in Prabodh Verma & Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1984(4) SCC 251) in support of this contention . 13. First, I shall deal with the contention of the respondents that there is non joinder of necessary parties and therefore the writ Petition is to be dismissed. It goes without saying that if a writ petition is filed seeking orders to the prejudice of any body, such person/persons should be made as WPC.No. 9039/09& anor. :8 : eonominee party to the proceedings. On the other hand, if the parties who are likely to be affected are numerous, it is also open to the petitioner to implead the affected parties in a representative capacity and publish notice, so that the affected parties can come on record and safeguard their interests. However, such impleading of eonominee parties, will be insisted only in a case where reliefs are sought against anybody in particular. In this case, as already seen, what is under challenge is the decision of the respondents to treat the petitioner's post of Deputy Commandant, as a supernumerary one, which is reflected in the impugned orders. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner is against the State and its Officers and not against any of his colleagues in service. Therefore, it will not be proper to contend that the petitioner is seeking any individual relief against any of his colleagues, obliging him to bring them on party array, in order to give them an opportunity to contest the case and safeguard their rights. In this contest it is relevant to make reference to the Apex Court judgment in A.Janardhanan V. Union of India & Ors.(AIR 1983 SC 769), where rejecting contention regarding non-impleadment of affected parties in a proceedings where the challenge was against a seniority list, the Court held as follows; WPC.No. 9039/09& anor. :9 : “However, there is a more cogent reason why we would not countenance this contention. In this case, appellant does not claim seniority over any particular individual in the background of any particular fact controverted by that person against whom the claim is made. The contention is that the criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing up the impugned seniority list are invalid and illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government restraining it from upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list and for quashing the impugned seniority list. Thus the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against any particular individual. In this background, we consider it unnecessary to have all direct recruits to be impleaded as respondents. We may in this connection refer to General Manager, South Central Rly. Secundrabad V. A.V.R. Sidhati(1974(3)SCR 207 at p.212(AIR 1974 SC 1755 at p.1759). Repelling a contention on behalf of the appellant that the writ petitioners did not implead about 120 employees who were likely to be affected by the decision in the case, this court observed that the respondents(original petitioners) are impeaching the validity of those policy decisions on the ground of their being violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution. The proceedings are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory rule regulating to seniority of government servants is assailed. In such proceedings, the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. Approaching the matter from this angle, it may be noticed that relief is sought only against the Union of India and the concerned Ministry and not against any individual nor any seniority is claimed by any one individual against another particular individual and therefore even if technically the direct recruits were not before the Court, the petition is not likely to fail on that ground. The contention of the respondents for this additional reason must also be negatived. “ 14. Having regard to the nature of the relief sought and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, I cannot accept the WPC.No. 9039/09& anor. :10 : contention of the respondents that the writ petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. In support of their contention, the judgment of the Apex Court in Prabodh Verma & Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1984(4)SCC 251) was relied on by the party respondents. In this judgment, it has been held that parties who would be vitally affected by the judgment, or at least some of them should be impleaded in a writ petition. In the facts of this case, in my view, this judgment has no relevance. 15. The 2nd question, which should be dealt with at the threshold itself is regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Ordinarily, a writ petition challenging a show cause notice or a provisional seniority list will not be entertained by this court for the reason that, it is for the petitioner to show cause or file his objection and challenge the final order if he is aggrieved. However, this rule is not without exceptions. If, in a case, where proceedings initiated is without authority of law or ultravires or without jurisdiction, this court will be perfectly justified in entertaining a writ petition, without relegating the parties to work out their remedies before the appropriate authority. In this case, as already seen, by Exts.P6 to P9 orders, promotions have been granted to the petitioner invoking Rule 39 of the General Rules, the promotions have been regularised and he was absorbed in WPC.No. 9039/09& anor. :11 : the regular service. These orders were challenged and were upheld by this Court. These judgments have attained finality and several years have passed. It is thereafter that the respondents have initiated proceedings by Exts.P15 to P18, to review the settled seniority of the petitioner showing him as holding a supernumerary post. The official respondents and the State are bound by the judgments of this court. So long as those judgments hold the field, any action contrary to those judgments is absolutely without authority of law and is illegal. The question is when a person complains to this court that the State and its functionaries have initiated proceedings in violation of the judgments of this court, which are binding on them, whether he should be told to take his chance before the authorities themselves, and to approach this court only if the ultimate decision is against him or should this court assert its power and come to the rescue of the petitioner whose rights are violated. In my view, the answer has to be that this court will not remain a mere spectator, as otherwise this court will be encouraging authorities to flout its judgments. If that is allowed to happen, it will only lead to lawfulness and anarchy. In this context, I must also make reference to the Apex Court judgment in State of U.P v. Brahm Datt Sharma (AIR 1987 SC, 943), where after laying WPC.No. 9039/09& anor. :12 : down the law that, when a show cause notice is issued to a Government servant under a statutory provision, the Government servant must ordinarily place his case before the concerned authority by showing cause, the Apex Court held that the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at this stage unless notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. Again, in the judgment in Executive Engineer, BSHB V. Ramesh K. Singh & Ors. (JT 1995(8)SCC 331), it has been held in paragraph 10 as follows; “No question of infringement of any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is alleged or proved. It cannot be said that Ext.P4 notice is ex facie a “nullity” or totally “without jurisdiction” in the traditional sense of that expression - that is to say that even the commencement or initiation of the proceedings, on the face of it and without anything more, is totally unauthorized. In such a case, for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a show cause notice, at that stage, it should be shown that the authority has no power or jurisdiction to enter upon the enquiry in question. In all other cases, it is only appropriate that the party should avail of the alternate remedy and show cause against the same before the authority concerned and take up the objection regarding jurisdiction also, then. In the event of an adverse decision, it will certainly be open to him, to assail the same either in appeal or revision, as the case may be, or in appropriate cases, by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 16. In Whirlpool Corporation V. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998(8) SCC page 1), interfering with a show WPC.No. 9039/09& anor. :13 : cause notice, the Apex Court highlighted the circumstances where a High Court will be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, in the following words. “Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field. 17. These principles were reiterated in Siemens Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2006(12) SCC page 33) as follows; “Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this court in some decisions including State of U.P. V. Brahm Datt Sharma, Special Director V. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Union of India V. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, WPC.No. 9039/09& anor. :14 : ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose(See K.I. Shephard V. Union of India). It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter-affidavit as also in its purported show cause notice.” 18. Applying the law thus laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, I hold that this writ petition is maintainable in view of the finality that Exts.P6 to P9 and the