IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19535 of 2011(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- FIROZ, S/O. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, FULL TIME GARDENER, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT P.A.SADANAM, PERAYAM UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETRARY TO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (SERVICES C) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (SERVICES C) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE EXMPLOYMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 4. THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYMENT, KOLLAM - 691 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 19535/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE 3RD PAGE OF THE SSLC OF THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE REPORT CALL LETTER DATED 06/11/2011. P3: COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 31/12/2010. P4: COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 03/02/2011. P5: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 05/07/2011. P6: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12/07/2011. P7: COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DATED 17/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.19535 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 28th July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was sponsored by the 4th respondent for appointment to the post of Full Time Gardner in the Administrative Secretariat under the Public Administration Service (C) Department. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as a Full Time Gardner in the Administrative Secretariat. While working so the petitioner was served with Ext.P5 notice dated 5.7.2011. It is challenging Ext.P5 notice that this writ petition has been filed. True that, Ext.P5 carries a proposal to cancel the appointment of the petitioner who was appointed in the category of open priority. It is stated thereunder that the said appointment is illegal as the petitioner belongs to open non-priority category. It was in the said circumstances that he was required to submit his explanation as to why his appointment should not be cancelled. Thus, it is evident that Ext.P5 is not an order of termination, whilst it is only a notice asking the petitioner to show cause why his appointment should not be cancelled. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the course open to the petitioner is to submit proper explanation raising all his claims and contentions. In fact, on receipt of Ext.P5 the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6. The learned counsel for WP(C).No.19535/2011 2 the petitioner, in the circumstances, submits that the petitioner may be permitted to prefer a representation to supplement Ext.P6. In case the petitioner is desirous to file a representation to supplement Ext.P6, it will be open to him to submit such a supplementary representation within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondents shall consider Ext.P6 and the supplementary representation, if any, received and take appropriate decision thereon finalising the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS