IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1281 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14206/2009 Dated 25/05/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 4 & 5 IN W.P.(C): ------------------------- 1. K.UNNIKRISHNAN, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THALIPARAMBA. 2. P.VENUGOPALAN, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 6 TO 8 -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. S.EDISON, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 5. C.SREEJAYAN, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, HARIPAD. 6. K.SURESHKUMAR, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THODUPUZHA. WA.No. 1281 of 2009 7. T.RAMACHANDRAN, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD. 8. T.J.PAUL, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, MANNARCAD, PALAKKAD. 9. P.V.SYED ALAVI, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TIRURANGADI. GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.K.K.M.SHERIF FOR R4 TO R9. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.1281 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants are petitioners 4 and 5 in the writ petition. The respondents 4 to 9 herein were the remaining writ petitioners. The appellants are working in the Civil Supplies Department. The Civil Supplies Corporation is manned by deputation of necessary employees from the Civil Supplies Department. For deputing persons, the competent authority has published Ext.P2 draft seniority list. The appellants say, they have preferred Exts.P3C and P3D representations against the said list. According to them, several persons, who are liable to be deputed, have been exempted. If such persons are also included, it may not be necessary to depute the appellants. Apprehending that their representations may not be considered, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge directed the 3rd respondent to consider the representations of the writ petitioners. Dissatisfied with the direction of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is filed. W.A.No.1281/2009 2 2. According to the appellants, they are entitled to get an opportunity of being heard, so that, they can properly explain their grievances stated in their representations. Further, they pray, they may be retained till their representations are disposed of. Deputation to Civil Supplies Corporation can be rightly described as an incidence of service of the employees of the Civil Supplies Department. But, of course, the selection of employees for deputation should be done fairly and objectively having regard to the relevant norms. If Ext.P2 is still not finalised, the grievance voiced by the appellants in Exts.P3C and P3D may be considered objectively and a reply may be given to them. If the list is already finalised, they may be given a post decisional hearing and their objections properly considered and if their grievance is found genuine, the list may be reviewed appropriately. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the 2nd respondent is the competent authority to hear their objections. If that be so, the 3rd respondent may forward those representations to the 2nd respondent with his comments, so that the 2nd respondent can take a decision on them, as expeditiously as possible, after affording an opportunity of being W.A.No.1281/2009 3 heard to the appellants. The prayer of the appellants that they should be retained till their objections are considered with notice to them cannot be granted. If such a prayer is allowed to the appellants, all the persons proposed to be deputed will be entitled to the same relief, which will practically cripple the steps taken for deputation. But, even if they are deputed, if their case is found genuine, they shall be brought back to their parent department. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps