IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27128 of 2011(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P. USHAKUMARI, D/O.VELU, AGED 39 YEARS, HELPER, ANGANVADI CENTRE NO.105, MALAYANKAVU, MUNDAPARAMBY COLONY, KULUKKALLUR PANCHAYATH, KUPPAM, PATTAMBI, PALYSSERRI HOUSE, CHANDAMPATTA P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, PATTAMBI, ADDITIONAL KOPPAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 508. 2. SMT.USHADEVI, KATTERI HOUSE, KULUKKALLUR PANCHAYATH, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 508. 3. K. MUHAMMED, KUNNATH HOUSE, KULUKKALLUR PANCHAYATH, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 508. 4. DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFRE OFFICER, PALAKKAD-679 508. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSE ADIYODI R2 BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI, SRI.I.J.AUGUSTINE, SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN, SRI.SEBIN THOMAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27128/2011 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 9.12.2008. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION SEND BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.8.2011. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2011. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.27128 of 2011-M. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed in a permanent post of Helper in the Anganvadi Centre No.105 of Kulukkallur Panchayat, which is under the control of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, she had worked as a Helper in various Anganvadi Centures in the Kulukkallur Panchayat on temporary basis during 2005-2008. Based on the number of days that a Helper had worked, a seniority list of Helpers was prepared. Initially, a preliminary list was prepared and published in various dailies calling for objections. The petitioner's rank was No.12. The preliminary list was thereafter finalised and a final list was published in which the petitioner's rank was No.12 and the second respondent's rank was No.17. On the basis of their ranking, the petitioner was given a permanent appointment as per Ext.P1 dated 9.12.2008. Accordingly, the petitioner WP(C).No.27128/2011-M. 2 has been continuing in the permanent post, ever since. 2. While so, on the strength of information supplied under the Right to Information Act to one K.Muhammed, the third respondent herein, the authorities noticed that the second respondent had worked for a total number of 446 days, while the petitioner had worked only for 342 days. Therefore, the second respondent should have been ranked above the petitioner in the seniority list. For the above reason the authorities decided that the mistake should be corrected. Accordingly, the first respondent by issuing Ext.P3 order, terminated the services of the petitioner. This writ petition is filed challenging the above termination of the petitioner as per Ext.P3. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. According to the first respondent, the petitioner was appointed as a Helper in the Anganvadi on the assumption that she had more number of days service than that of the second respondent. However, it was later on found that the second respondent had worked for more WP(C).No.27128/2011-M. 3 number of days than of the petitioner. Therefore, in order to correct the mistake, Ext.P3 was issued terminating the services of the petitioner. Since Ext.P3 was issued for the purpose of correcting the mistake that had occurred, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that Ext.P3 is perfectly justified. A reply-affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P3 is unsustainable in view of the fact that the same has been passed without issuing notice to or hearing the petitioner. The petitioner who had been permanently appointed as a Helper, rightly or wrongly, had a right to be heard before Ext.P3 was issued, visiting her with adverse civil consequences and denying to her a permanent job. Therefore, according to her, Ext.P3 is liable to be set aside. The counsel for the second respondent as well as the learned Govt.Pleader submit that Ext.P3 has been issued only to correct an obvious mistake that was committed in the year 2007 in the selection process. WP(C).No.27128/2011-M. 4 5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the contesting parties. I have also considered the rival contentions advanced. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been appointed as a permanent Helper as per Ext.P1 on 9.12.2008 and that she has been continuing to work ever since. Ext.P3 has been issued terminating her service, without issuing any notice seeking her explanation or giving her an opportunity to show cause. The only explanation that is forthcoming is that a mistake had occurred in the selection process in the year 2007, which was noticed only in 2011. Therefore, Ext.P3 has been issued to correct the said mistake. 7. Even assuming the mistake to be genuine, the procedure adopted is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as laid down, explained and applied by the Apex Court as well as this Court in a number of decisions. The petitioner was certainly entitled to an opportunity of being heard before Ext.P3 was passed. In the above WP(C).No.27128/2011-M. 5 circumstance, without going into the merits of the other contentions, I set aside Ext.P3. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service. 8. The authorities are certainly bound to correct any mistake. The same can be done only by following the proper procedure as laid down by law. It is made clear that the power of the authorities to take fresh action to correct the mistake, if any, shall not be affected by this judgment. 9. In the result, (a) this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P3 is set aside. (b) The first respondent shall be at liberty to issue fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if any mistake as alleged, requires correction. Ordered accordingly. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-