IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2636 of 2009()
1. P.S.BABU,ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), VAIDYUTHI
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :20/11/2009
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.A.No.2636 of 2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009
JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph, J.
Appellant is the writ petitioner. He approached this court
aggrieved by Ext.P1 notice. As per Ext.P1 notice the appointing
authority has directed the petitioner to explain why the alleged
irregular promotion should not be cancelled. Learned single
Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that it is always open to
the appointing authority to correct a mistake. Aggrieved, the
writ petitioner has come up in appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants raised two
contentions: (1) The appointing authority has no jurisdiction to
take a decision, in view of the Government decision under Rule
37A Part I of the KSR. (2) In any case since the petitioner has
been holding the post of Assistant Engineer for the past more
than three years, he is entitled to continue in the post, on the
well settled principle of “sit back theory”. Learned Standing
Counsel attempted to controvert both submissions and also
W.A.No.2636 of 2009
-:2:-
attempted to make submissions on merits also. We do not think
that this court should at this stage go into those contentions.
After all Ext.P1 is a notice. Appellant will be free to take all the
contentions in his reply to the notice. It will be too premature for
this court to assume that an authority, who has jurisdiction to
take a decision in such matters, will take a decision against law.
Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge
and dispose of the writ petition as follows. It will be open to the
petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of one month
from today. Thereafter the competent authority shall afford an
opportunity for hearing to the petitioner. A considered order
shall be passed in the matter adverting to the contentions taken
by the petitioner. Till such an order is passed and communicated
to the petitioner, the reversion will be deferred.
(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ahg.
KURIAN JOSEPH &
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
—————————
W.A.No.2636 of 2009
—————————-
JUDGMENT
20th November, 2009