IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5066 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. T.V.ABDU RAHMAN KUTTY, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 52 YEARS, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, MARANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. P.MOHANAN, S/O.CHINNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, PERFORMANCE AUDIT UNIT VI, THALAKKAD, POST B.P.ANGADI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. M.MOIDUTTY, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, THIRUNNAVAYA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SRI.BINUN VAHEED, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 5066 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are Junior Superintendents in the Kerala Panchayat Subordinate Service. Ext.P1 seniority list for Grama Panchayat Secretary for the period from 01.05.01 to 31.10.05 was finalised and this shows that the 3rd respondent is junior to the petitioners. Apparently, the 3rd respondent filed an application under Rule 27B of the KS& SSR in relation to Ext.P1. This was allowed, accepting the claim of the 3rd respondent, as is evident by Ext.P3. Petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P3. It is inter-alia contended that the petitioners were not heard before the Government passed Ext.P3. On 12.02.08, this court requested the Government Pleader to get instructions whether the petitioners were heard before Ext.P3 order was passed. The Government Pleader submits that the petitioners were not heard before passing Ext.P3. Sri.Jaju Babu, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent also affirms the same. The petitioner ought to have been heard before passing WPC No. 5066 OF 2008 2 Ext.P3. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms: The Government shall treat Ext.P3 as a show cause notice and the petitioners shall be entitled to file objections thereto within a period of one month from today. Since there are other persons who will be affected by the acceptance of the claim contained in Ext.P3, all such affected persons shall be given notice of Ext.P3 as also the directions contained in this judgment. Thereafter final orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that the Government shall not commit the same mistake of hearing some affected persons and leaving out others, before fresh orders are passed. V. GIRI, JUDGE ttb WPC No. 5066 OF 2008 3