IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 146 of 2008(P) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ K. VIJAYAN, JUNIOR EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT,ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN-682 030. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE (KERALA), DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE (KERALA), DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. 4. K.V. PUSHPARAJAN, JUNIOR EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, IRINJALAKUDA, PIN-680 121. 5. B. CHITHARANJAN, JUNIOR EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN-682 030. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN SRI.K.JAJU BABU SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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