IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27568 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ DIXY PRASAD P.P., HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT TRIBAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KURIKKATTUKUDI, P.O.THOPPIPALA,VIA.KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DIST., RESIDING AT PALAKUNNATHU HOUSE, MELUKAVU P.O., PALAI-686 652, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.27568 of 2011-U. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order of reversion passed by the second respondent. According to the petitioner, he had submitted several representations before the respondents pointing out that the order of reversion was in violation of the principles of natural justice and that reversion in the present case amounted to imposition of a punishment under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. According to the petitioner, the above punishment has been imposed without finalising the disciplinary proceedings and without affording an opportunity of being heard to him. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate orders and directions setting aside the proceedings initiated against him. WP(C).No.27568/2011-U. 2 2. I notice that Ext.P6 order is dated 7.2.2005 and that the petitioner had challenged the very same order in another writ petition – WP(C).No.7094/2005. According to the petitioner, though the said writ petition was admitted since no interim order was granted in his favour, the reversion was effected and according to him, the writ petition became infructuous. While so, a personal hearing was given to him on 13.4.2005. Thereupon, according to the petitioner, the respondents informed him that the pendency of the writ petition would stand in the way of orders being issued restoring his original post to him. Bonafide believing the representations of the respondents, the petitioner had withdrawn the said writ petition on 2.6.2005. 3. Since the judgment of this Court in WP(C). No.7094/2005 is not produced by the petitioner, a copy thereof was called for as per my order dated 18.10.2011. The judgment in the said case is as follows: WP(C).No.27568/2011-U. 3 “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition is not pressed. A memo has been filed to that effect. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.” 4. Since the earlier writ petition was dismissed as not pressed, without reserving liberty of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P6 afresh, the present challenge against Ext.P6 is not maintainable. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that the dismissal of this writ petition is without prejudice to the rights if any, of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P6 before the departmental authorities. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-