IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29510 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. P.KUMARAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR. 2. KESAVADAS V. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, WADAKKACHERRY, THRISSUR 3. P.V.PRADEEP, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISISON DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, THRISSUR. 4. AUGUSTINE THOMAS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WPC NO.29510/09 -2- 3. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), K.S.E.BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC,KSEB GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29510 OF 2009 (G) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Sri.K.S.Anil, standing counsel takes notice for respondents. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 3. Petitioners' grievance is basically against Ext.P9 notice dated 12/10/99 issued by the 4th respondent stating that in pursuance to Ext.P8, the judgment in WP(C) No.17937/09, the petitioners are allowed a personal hearing on 20/10/2009. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers in the Board was finalised as per Ext.P6 proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 27/11/2004. This order itself provided that despite the finalisation of the seniority, complaints, if any, against the seniority will be entertained. Though certain complaints were filed against Ext.P6 seniority list, without finalising the same, Ext.P7 notice was issued proposing to review the seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineers. Ext.P7 was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.17937/07 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P8 WPC 29510/09 :2 : holding the review proposed by Ext.P7 to be premature and quashing the same. However, in the judgment, liberty was given to the 4th respondent to finalise the proceedings dealing with the complaints that were filed in pursuance to Ext.P6. It was apparently in pursuance to the liberty so given in Ext.P8 judgment that a hearing is now scheduled as per Ext.P9 notice referred to above. On receipt of Ext.P9, petitioners have filed Exts.P10 to Ext.P13 objections mainly contending that in the notices issued to them, the grounds on which Ext.P6 and P6(a) final seniority list are attacked have not been disclosed, and that therefore, in scheduling the hearing, without disclosing the grounds, natural justice has been violated. 5. Although the standing counsel appearing for the respondents tried to sustain Ext.P9 and the hearing that is now scheduled on 20/10/2009, still having regard to the fact that the petitioners' seniority is likely to be disturbed if a review as now proposed is undertaken, principles of natural justice require that they shall be disclosed the grounds on which the seniority settled in their favour is attacked by any other employee of the Board. Therefore, petitioners are well founded in the submission that WPC 29510/09 :3 : before the hearing actually takes place, they shall be informed of the grounds on which the whole exercise is undertaken. In view of this, it will be premature for the respondents to conduct the hearing as scheduled in Ext.P9 tomorrow (20/10/2009). 6. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the following directions: (1) That the hearing now scheduled to tomorrow shall be deferred to a suitable date. (2) The 4th respondent shall disclose to the petitioners, objections or the contents of the objections that have been raised against Exts.P6 and P6(a), and the petitioners will be permitted to file their objections in the matter. (3) After affording such opportunity to the petitioners, it will be open to the 4th respondent to schedule a hearing, hear the petitioners also and finalise the matter as directed in Ext.P8 judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp