IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1201 of 2009(R) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. A. MOHANAN NAIR, REVENUE OFFIER GRADE-II CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. V. REMADEVI, REVENUE OFFICER GRADE-II, PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, PUNALUR. BY ADVS. MR.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, MR.BRIJESH MOHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR, URBAN AFFAIRS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SECRETARY, PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, PUNALUR. 4. SMT.P. AMBUJAVALLY AMMA, SUPERINTENDENT, CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM. 5. SMT.G. KALAVATHY, SUPERINTENDENT, CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM. 6. SRI. THOMAS P. THOMAS, SUPERINTENDENT, CHANGANASSERY MUNICIPALITY, CHANGANASSERY. W.P.(C). NO.1201/2009-R: 7. SRI.A. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, SUPERINTENDENT, CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM. 8. SMT.M.J. ACHAMMA, SUPERINTENDENT, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH, R2 BY MR. N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR. P.K.MANOJKUMAR, R3 BY ADV. MR.B.KRISHNA MANI, R4 TO R7 BY ADV. MR.ELVIN PETER P.J. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.1201/2009-R: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B7/8120/05 DTD. 03/08/05 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E6-2270/08 DTD. 25/03/08 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E6/2/08 DTD. 13/06/08 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E6/3/08 DTD. 09/07/08 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E6-11242/08 DTD. 08/01/09 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E6-11242/08 DTD. 14/01/09 ISSUED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29/03/1986 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 04/08/1986 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMN. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/11/1986 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMN. EXT.R4.D: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10/04/1989 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMN. EXT.R4.E: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22/05/1986 OF THE GOVERNMENT ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF REVENUE STAFF. EXT.R4.F: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 01/01/2009 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R4.G: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 25/07/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE R.5. TO THE R.1. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO: 1201 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT On the consent of parties, this writ petition was heard and hence is being disposed of by this judgment. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 order passed by which the Director of Urban Affairs, Thiruvananthapuram cancelled Exts.P1 and P2 orders, as requested by the contesting respondents herein. Based on Ext.P1, the seniority of the petitioners was assigned in the higher cadres which is evidenced by Ext.P2. Consequential promotions have been ordered in their favour, which are evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4. These stand cancelled by Ext.P5, resulting in their reversion. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 7, it is contended that the petitioners claim is based on the fact that they have acquired the test qualification on 20.02.1986 but respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7 had acquired the qualification for promotion prior to 16.9.1985. Ext.R4(a) is the proceedings of the Director of Municipal Administration, whereby 215 persons were promoted. Therein respondents 4, 6 and 7 were included. By Ext.R4(b) they were given retrospective promotion with effect from 16.9.1985. It is therefore, pointed out that as on the said date petitioners were not qualified and therefore, the promotions granted to them by way of restoring their wpc:1201 of 2009 2 seniority cannot be upheld. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that R4(b) was not known or communicated to them till it is produced along with the counter affidavit. The question is whether Ext.P5 order has been passed after considering their objections or issuing any notice to them. The stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 8 is that by way of correcting a wrong order Ext.P5 is issued and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to be put on notice on the said issue. Therefore, it is contended that absence of a hearing is immaterial. It cannot be disputed that by Ext.P5 the seniority of petitioners have been revised and the orders by which promotions were granted to them were cancelled. The same will definitely cause adverse civil consequences to the petitioners. While reviewing the same at the instance of respondents 4 to 8, the petitioners ought to have been heard in the matter. Whether the claim raised by the petitioners in the light of the objections raised by the respondents 4 to 8 is sustainable or not is an issue to be decided after hearing both parties. Since that exercise is not seen done in Ext.P5 the same is quashed. The merits of the respective claim of the parties, are not therefore considered here, as it is for the first respondent to take a decision on the basis of their respective contentions, materials they rely upon and in accordance with the rules. wpc:1201 of 2009 3 4. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to hear the petitioners and respondents 4 to 8 afresh and take a decision in the matter within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps