IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2636 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31990/2009 Dated 10/11/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITINER IN WP ----------------------------- P.S.BABU,ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) SECTION OFFICE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VALAPPAD P.O., EDAMUTTOM,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WP ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS R2 & R3 BY SRI.ASHOK M. CHERIYAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A.No.2636 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. He approached this court aggrieved by Ext.P1 notice. As per Ext.P1 notice the appointing authority has directed the petitioner to explain why the alleged irregular promotion should not be cancelled. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that it is always open to the appointing authority to correct a mistake. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner has come up in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants raised two contentions: (1) The appointing authority has no jurisdiction to take a decision, in view of the Government decision under Rule 37A Part I of the KSR. (2) In any case since the petitioner has been holding the post of Assistant Engineer for the past more than three years, he is entitled to continue in the post, on the well settled principle of “sit back theory”. Learned Standing Counsel attempted to controvert both submissions and also W.A.No.2636 of 2009 -:2:- attempted to make submissions on merits also. We do not think that this court should at this stage go into those contentions. After all Ext.P1 is a notice. Appellant will be free to take all the contentions in his reply to the notice. It will be too premature for this court to assume that an authority, who has jurisdiction to take a decision in such matters, will take a decision against law. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and dispose of the writ petition as follows. It will be open to the petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of one month from today. Thereafter the competent authority shall afford an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner. A considered order shall be passed in the matter adverting to the contentions taken by the petitioner. Till such an order is passed and communicated to the petitioner, the reversion will be deferred. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------- W.A.No.2636 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 20th November, 2009