IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 645 of 2011(E) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BINI.K.P., DRAFTSMAN GR.II, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. 2. SHAINI.E.K., 1ST GRADE OVERSEER,GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. 3. JAYASREE.K.S.,1ST GRADE OVERSEER,GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. 4. PREENA.A.,T GRADE OVERSEER,GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (G) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. 3. C.K. SYAMALA, OVERSEER GRADE-I,GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. ADV. SRI. GIMMY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 645 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 7th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Third respondent herein and others filed W.P(C) No. 30489/2010 before this Court in respect of promotion prospects. By Ext. P1 judgment, this Court directed consideration of Exts.P7 to P10 representations in that writ petition, “after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as a representative of the employees of the other Departments.” The petitioners claim to be persons belonging to other departments who would be affected, if favourable orders are passed in the representations filed by the 3rd respondent, as directed in Ext. P1 judgment. Their grievance in this writ petition is that pursuant to Ext. P1 judgment, the 1st respondent has conducted a hearing without affording an opportunity to the petitioners who are the employees of the other departments who are likely to be affected if the order to be passed pursuant to Ext. P1 is in favour of the 3rd respondent. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners before passing final orders pursuant to Ext. P1 judgment. ii) declare that the petitioners, who are working in the Engineering Department of the GCDA are entitled to be afforded with an opportunity of being heard while taking a decision pursuant to Ext. P1 judgment. Iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or injunction restraining the 1st respondent from passing final orders as directed in Ext. P1 judgment before affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. W.P(C) 645/2011. -: 2 :- In the nature of the order I propose to pass, I do no think it necessary to issue notice to the 3rd respondent at this juncture. Insofar as in Ext. P1, there is a specific direction to hear the representative of the employees of the Department, it is only appropriate that the 1st respondent hears the petitioners also before passing orders pursuant to Ext. P1 judgment. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to afford an opportunity of being heard to the 2nd petitioner also representing all the petitioners and consider her contentions also before passing orders. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.