IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7069 of 2011(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL ANSARI, VADAKKAYIL HOUSE, MANARKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686001 2. COMMISSIONR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM - 695001. 3. SAM G.VARGHESE, KAROTT HOUSE, ERAVINELLOOR, P.O., PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.7069 OF 2011(G) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T On 6.1.2006, applications were invited for appointment as AWD No.IV/ Mannarkadu in Kottayam District. The petitioner was an applicant and eventually he was also selected and appointed. Against his appointment an appeal was filed before the 2nd respondent by one of the applicants. The 2nd respondent remanded the matter to the first respondent for fresh enquiry and disposal. The Ist respondent heard the parties including the petitioner and passed Ext.P2 order directing that a fresh notification be issued and selection to be conducted on that basis. 2. Against Ext.P2 order the 3rd respondent herein filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. By Ext.P4 proceedings the 2nd respondent remanded the matter again to the first respondent directing him to reconsider the matter. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no specific direction in Ext.P4 that he should also be heard by the first respondent before final orders are passed. It is stated that in the circumstances petitioner WPC.No.7069 /2011 :2 : submitted Ext.P5 representation before the first respondent requesting that when the matter is heard in pursuance to Ext.P4 he should also be heard. No response was received and complaining of this the writ petition is filed. 3. From the facts as noticed above it is obvious that the petitioner is a person who is very much interested in the outcome of the proceedings. If that be so, I see nothing unreasonable in the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P5 that as and when the matter is heard by the Ist respondent he should also be heard. 4. Therefore, I direct that the first respondent shall hear the petitioner also as and when the matter regarding the appointment of ARD.No.IV/Mannarkadu is taken up for consideration in pursuance to Ext.P4. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.7069 /2011 :3 :