THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.9036 of 2010 Between: Sk. Fareed Basha ..... PETITIONER(S) AND .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.9036 of 2010 ORDER: (per KGS, J) The petitioner is a Lab Technician. The petitioner questions the order dated 27-8-2009 passed by the District Co-ordinator of Hospital Services, Krishna District, at Machilipatnam. The order was a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the petitioner shall not be reverted as a Lab Attendant. Inter alia, the seniority between Bala Madhavi who is the 4th respondent herein and the petitioner came up for consideration. The petitioner moved the Administrative Tribunal for an interim order questioning the show cause notice. Through the impugned order, the Administrative Tribunal held that the show cause notice was not without jurisdiction and was not illegal. Show cause notice consequently was upheld and the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected. The basic question is whether the petitioner can invoke the special extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the show cause notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the concerned authority has already taken a decision to revert the petitioner and issued the show cause notice. His claim is that the show cause notice has become an empty formality where the concerned authority has taken a decision to revert the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader contends that the petitioner cannot question the action of the authorities at the stage of the show cause notice and that in any event where the petitioner is found to be a junior to the 4th respondent, the petitioner certainly would have a cause of action. We consider that this is not the stage at which the petitioner can question the order of the appointing authority. At the same time, the petitioner has made out a point that in the order dated 27-8-2009 issued by the appointing authority it was stated that the temporary promotion which was issued in favour of the petitioner as Lab Technician deserves to be modified reverting the petitioner as Lab Attendant. We therefore consider that the petitioner shall respond to the show cause notice dated 27-8-2009 issued by the appointing authority. To safeguard the interests of the petitioner, the appointing authority shall be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner disregarding its earlier view that the petitioner shall be reverted from the position of the Lab Technician to the post of Lab Attendant. Needless to state that in any event the petitioner’s representation is not considered, the petitioner shall have a cause of action. As of now, when show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to explain as to why he shall not be reverted, the petitioner cannot invoke the special extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. We therefore dispose of the writ petition rejecting the claim of the petitioner, but holding at the same time that the concerned authority viz., District Co-Ordinator of Hospital Services, Krishna District at Machilipatnam shall consider the representation of the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 27-8-2009 without recourse to the view of the selection committee that the temporary promotion order of the petitioner as Lab Technician needs to be cancelled, reverting the petitioner as Lab Assistant. The concerned authority shall ignore any of the observations made by the Tribunal while considering the above aspects. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________ K.G.SHANKER, J. 7-2-2011 KK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.9036 of 2010 7-2-2011