IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 7980 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------------- THE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, VIMALA PROVINCE CARMELITE, PROVINCIAL HOUSE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 3. NEENA MATHAI, KOLENCHERRY HOUSE, MANICKAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. T.B. RAMANI. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 7980 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 9th July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Sister Aleykutty K.M., while working as HSA in St. Mary's High School, Ernakulam died on 20.06.1992. Aleykutty was a spinster. Her sister Neena Mathai applied for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. But the Manager did not appoint her. Complaining that she was not given employment, Neena Mathai approached the District Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer passed Ext. P4 order dated 27.03.2002 holding that Neena Mathai is not entitled to get appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme . Neena Mathai filed a revision before the Government . Government passed Ext. P7 order dated 17.08.2007 holding that Neena Mathai is entitled to get appointment and the Manager was directed to issue orders posting Neena Mathai with effect from the date of receipt of the certificates , viz. relation ship certificate/heirship certificate. Ext. P7 order is under challenge in this Writ Petition filed by the Manager. 2. Ext.P7 order is challenged mainly on the ground that the Manager was not afforded with an opportunity of being heard by the first respondent while disposing of the matter as per Ext. P7 order. It is pointed out that Ext.P7 order itself would indicate that the petitioner and a teacher by name Lincy Joseph, who was appointed by the Manager (the petitioner herein) were heard by the first respondent. The order does not indicate that the Manager was heard. The order also does not disclose the contentions put forward by the Manager though Ext.P5 detailed argument note dated 10th October 2006 was submitted by the Manager. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the W.P.(C) No. 7980 OF 2008 2 petitioner that though the petitioner received a notice from the first respondent and he appeared on the date fixed, the matter was not taken up on that date and he was not informed about the adjourned date and thereby he was deprived of an opportunity of being heard. 3. On a perusal of the order, it cannot be said that the petitioner was also heard. There is no case for the third respondent that the petitioner was also heard by the first respondent. Learned Government Pleader also has not controverted the contention raised by the petitioner that he was not heard. Since the petitioner was not heard, Ext.P7 order is violative of the principles of natural justice. The contentions put forward by the petitioner were not considered by the first respondent. Hence the matter requires fresh consideration by the first respondent. Therefore, Ext. P7 order is quashed. The first respondent shall dispose of the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, Neena Mathai (third respondent herein) and Lincy Joseph and also any other affected person. Notice in advance shall be issued to the aforesaid persons and the first respondent shall dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk