IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 146 of 2008(P)
1. K. VIJAYAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR,
3. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
4. K.V. PUSHPARAJAN,
5. B. CHITHARANJAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :28/01/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C). 146/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P16 order passed by the
Government and Ext.P17, which is consequential to
Ext.P16. Several contentions have been raised
challenging Ext.P16. It is contended that settled seniority
has been unsettled, purportedly by accepting the petitions
under Rule 27B of Part-II of KS and SSR. It is contended
that such petitions under Rule 27B were not maintainable
at all. Apparently, Government had proceeded to
consider Exts.P3 and P4 statutory representations marked
in Writ Petition No.16264/2006 without considering
whether the petitions were maintainable or not and within
the time stipulated in Rule 27B. No doubt, Writ petition
No.16264/2006 was disposed by this Court under Ext.P18
judgment. But notice was not given to the petitioner
herein who was an affected person.
2. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions,
submits that the petitioner’s contention that Ext.P16 was
W.P.(C).146/2008
2
passed without notice to him and without hearing him
is correct. Mr.Jaju Babu, learned counsel for the
contesting respondents, also affirms this in as much as
the order itself has been passed without hearing the
affected persons. In my view, it is unsustainable and I
declare it to be so.
3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing
the first respondent to treat Ext.P16 as a notice of show
cause and hear all the affected persons including the
petitioner and the contesting respondents. If there are
other affected persons, who are not parties to this Writ
petition, they shall also be given notice. Copies of the
representations marked as Exts.P3 and P4 and Writ
Petition No.16264/2006 shall also be supplied to the
petitioner and other affected persons. They shall be
given permission to file objections thereto. Fresh orders
thereafter, shall be passed in this regard by the
Government taking note of all the contentions of the
petitioner including the maintainability of the statutory
W.P.(C).146/2008
3
representations referred to in Ext.P18. Needless to say
the contentions of the contesting respondents will also
be adverted to before any order is passed in this regard.
Fresh order shall be passed in the place of Exts.P16 and
P17 within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs