IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25459 of 2010(F) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SURESH P, TRADESMAN (ELECTRONICS) VRINDAVANAM, CHAMPAKKARA PO, KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER SMT.JANCY ALEX RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 3. THE SENIOR JOINT DIRECTOR (E C S) OFFICE OF OTHE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 4. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, WAYANAD 673 592 R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 25459 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as Tradesman (Electronics) in Government Engineering College, Wayanad. He had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 22885/2010 challenging Ext.P9, a show cause notice issued to him as to why his probation should not be terminated and he should not be discharged from service with effect from 5.1.2006. As per Ext.P7 judgment, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition granting liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanation in response to Ext.P9 show cause notice referred to therein, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of Ext.P7 judgment. Further, the respondents were directed to treat the reply in case received from the petitioner as having made within the time limit and to consider the same and pass orders thereon. In terms of Ext.P7 judgment, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 representation in response to Ext.P9 notice. He had raised various legal contentions therein. Ext.P8 representation was submitted within the time limit prescribed in Ext.P7 judgment. However, on 22.7.2010, WPC.25459/2010 : 2 : viz., the date of Ext.P7 judgment itself an order was passed against the petitioner. That order was passed pursuant to Ext.P9 show cause referred to in Ext.P7. It is thus obvious that Ext.P9 order was passed without considering the representation submitted by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P7 judgment. The respondents cannot be found fault with the said action since they had passed Ext.P9 order on the very same day on which Ext.P7 judgment was rendered. However, in the interest of justice, I am of the view that the second respondent is bound to consider the issue afresh, especially in the light of Ext.P7 judgment. To enable the second respondent to consider the issue in terms of Ext.P7 judgment and after considering Ext.P8 representation Ext.P9 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P8 before taking a decision on Ext.P9 show cause notice referred to in Ext.P7. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge