IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 4125 of 2007(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- 1. FAUD F., `GAZAL', PUNNAKKALTHOPE, KALLATHUMUKKU, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHANDLAL R., `ABHILASH', VILAYIL PURAYIDAM, MANCHADIMOODU, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SHEEBA BEEGAM S., SHEEJA MANZIL, NEAR T.H.S MANCHA, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. PRIYA PRASAD, PRIYA BHAVAN, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI. BY ADVS. MR.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, MR.D.AJITHKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, WARE HOUSING CORPORATION ROAD, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY MR.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 4290 OF 2007 AND CONNECTED CASES,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.4125/2007-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER ISSUED TO THE P.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER ISSUED TO THE P.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER ISSUED TO THE P.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER ISSUED TO THE P.4. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER ISSUED TO SMT. SINDHU. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RESOLUTION OF 173RD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RESOLUTION OF 174TH MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 2520 DT. 15/03/2006 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER TERMINATING THE P.1. FAUD F. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER TERMINATING THE P.2. CHANDLAL.R. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER TERMINATING THE P.3, SHEEBA BEEGAM.S. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE ORDER TERMINATING THE P.4. PRIYA PRASAD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NOs.4125/07,4258/07,4280/07, 4290/07,4294/09,4305/07,4383/07, 4438/07,5638/07,6328/07,22534/07, 24043/07,26227/07,27420/07 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions, the issue raised being common, were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. According to the petitioners pursuant to the judgment of this court in Asokan V. Kerala State Warehousing Corporation(2005 (3) KLT 837), the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation, the respondent in these writ petitions issued notification dated 17.10.2005 inviting applications for the post of Assistants. In the notification, the number of vacancies was indicated as 50 and the qualification prescribed was SSLC. Applications were made in response to the notification and after a process of selection, petitioners were appointed on 1.3.2006. 3. Later, by order dated 3.2.2007, in implementation of the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, the appointments were canceled and the petitioners were terminated from service. A copy of this order issued to the petitioner in WP(c). WPC .Nos.4125/07 & conn. :2 : No.27420/07 is produced therein as Ext.P3. It is challenging this order and similar other orders, that these writ petitions have been filed. 4. A Counter affidavit has been filed by the Warehousing Corporation justifying the cancellation of appointments and termination of the petitioners. According to them, only 12 vacancies were available and that out of which, ten ought to have gone to the dependents of deceased employees. Therefore, according to them, the vacancies indicated in the notification were non-existing and appointments made were also to the non-exiting vacancies. It is also stated that, though the Executive Committee created certain additional posts, such action was also unauthorized and without jurisdiction. 5. Though they stated that the selection process was also vitiated for several other reasons, the fact remains that the cancellation of the appointments and termination of the petitioners was effected invoking clause 12(1) of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations, 1963. One of the points raised by the petitioners, which as a matter of fact has been accepted by the WPC .Nos.4125/07 & conn. :3 : Corporation, is that the impugned orders of cancellation of appointments and termination of services have been issued without notice to any of the affected parties. 6. Although the counsel for the Corporation wanted me to accept that the Corporation has power to pass the impugned order without notice to the affected parties, I am not inclined to agree with this submission of the learned Counsel. In my view, when an order of the nature referred to above is issued, such an order can be passed only with notice to those affected by such action. In this case admittedly this has not been done. Therefore for that reason I am inclined to think that the orders dated 3.2.2007 needs to be interfered with. Therefore these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions. 7. Orders dated 3.2.2007 issued to the petitioners will be treated as show cause notices and it will be open to the petitioners to file their objections to the said notice, addressed to the Managing Director of the Warehousing Corporation and the same shall be done at any rate within 4 weeks from today. It is directed that if such representations are received within 4 weeks as directed, the WPC .Nos.4125/07 & conn. :4 : same will be considered with notice to the persons who have filed such representations and final orders shall be passed duly adverting to the contentions raised. This shall be done within 2 months of receipt the objections. 8. It is clarified that this judgment will not enable the petitioners to claim reinstatement in service as they are already out of service consequent on the impugned orders and their claim for reinstatement will depend upon the ultimate decision to be taken in the manner directed above. All other contentions raised by both sides are left open. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/