IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36931 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MINI.T.V, MATTATIL HOUSE, NAMBIAPURAM, PALLURUTHY P.O., COCHIN-682 006. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOLS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 4. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PUTHNTHODE, CHELLANAM PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM DIST. (A4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.827/2010 DTD.22.1.2010) GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.T.MAHAMOOD SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 36931 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P9, P11 and P12 orders. The petitioner applied for the post of HSST in Economics. She was selected and advised. Later on, Ext.P9 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing to show cause why her name should not be removed from the rank list and her advice should not be cancelled on the ground that as on the last date prescribed for submitting applications for the post, she did not have the prescribed qualification in so far as the results of the M.Phil. Examination, which was an essential qualification for the post, were published subsequent to the last date for submitting applications, although the examination was written by the petitioner in March, 2009. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the PSC stating that Clause 19 of General Conditions of the Selection Notification specifically prescribed that in case of examination conducted by a University or other competent authority, the candidate will be deemed to have passed the examination only with effect from the date of official publication of the results of the examination by the University or the concerned authority. He also refers to several decisions of this Court upholding the stand of the PSC on the basis of the said clause. 2 Ext.P12 is the order of the appointing authority whereby, consequent to cancellation of the advice, the petitioner's appointment has also been cancelled. Inter alia, the petitioner raises a contention that before passing Ext.P12 order, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Yona v. Mahatma Gandhi University [1992 (1) KLT - SN 38]. The petitioner would contend that the appointing authority could not have cancelled the appointment without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In view of that contention, I am inclined to direct the 2nd respondent to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before taking a final decision in the matter. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Ext.P12 would be treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner shall file her objections to the same within two weeks. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass final orders before 15.3.2010. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3