IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4694 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JEBY JOHN, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-20. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-20, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH ADV.JIMMY GEORGE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, A/W. W.P.(C).No.4696/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).Nos.4694 & 4696 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T In these two writ petitions, the petitioners are Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer of the 2nd respondent- Greater Cochin Development Authority. Their grievance in these writ petitions is that they have been ordered to be reverted on the ground that they were promoted in violation of the quota rules. According to the petitioners, going by the number of posts available, there was no violation of the quota rules. They would contend that even now, vacancies are available for accommodating the direct recruits in accordance with the quota rules and, therefore, there is no question of violation of the quota rule while promoting the petitioners to their respective posts. The petitioners, therefore, challenge Exts.P8 and P4 in their respective writ petitions. One of the contentions raised is that the petitioners were not heard before passing the impugned orders. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Greater Cochin Development Authority also. 3. Insofar as the petitioners have not been afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned orders, I am inclined to hold that the orders are bad for non-compliance with the w.p.c.4694/11 & cc 2 principles of natural justice. But these orders need not be quashed if the same are treated as show cause notices. Accordingly, the 1st respondent shall treat the impugned orders are show cause notices. The petitioners shall file their objections to the impugned orders within two weeks. The 1st respondent shall consider and pass orders on the objections to be filed by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Since I have directed the Government to consider the impugned orders as show cause notices, the impugned orders shall not be implemented until orders are passed as directed above. The petitioners shall also be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge