IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12055 of 2008(I) PETITIONERS: 1. M.PRABHAKARAN, MANAGER, SREE PISHARIKAVU DEVASWOM, P.O.KOLLAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. M.K.RAJAN, HEAD CLERK, SREE PISHARIKAVU DEVASWOM, P.O.KOLLAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. V.K.ASHOKAN, U.D.CLERK, SREE PISHARIKAVU DEVASWOM, P.O.KOLLAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. P.C.ANILKUMAR, L.D.CLERK, SREE PISHARIKAVU DEVASWOM, P.O.KOLLAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1. SREE PISHARIKAVU DEVASWOM REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER AT KOLLAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE PISHARIKAVU DEVASWOM, P.O.KOLLAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E (ADMN) DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF REVENUE (DEVASWOM), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.12055 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners are employed in the 1st respondent Devaswom. They are aggrieved by Ext.P3 and P8 orders passed by respondents 3 and 4 apparently cancelling the creation of a post of Manager, which according to them, will result in termination of the services of the petitioners. They submit that they are continuing in their respective posts of Manager, Head Clerk, Upper Division Clerk with effect from 20.11.1999. Reference in this regard is made to Ext.P8 communication issued by the Government to the Commissioner requiring that the services of the 4th petitioner to be dispensed with on the premise that the appointment of the 4th petitioner was in contravention of the Government Order. Pursuant to Ext.P6, P7 show cause notice communicates a provisional decision to cancel the creation of the post of Manager and resultant promotion and appointment of the 4th petitioner. The petitioners submits that Ext.P7 should be treated as a formality in the light of Ext.P8. W.P.(C).NO.12055/08 :: 2 :: 2. I am of the view that in the light of Ext.P8, the issue has to be considered by the Government. 3. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (a) The 3rd respondent commissioner shall forward Ext.P7 to the Government and it shall be treated as a notice to the petitioners and one issued by the Government itself. (b) The Government shall then consider Ext.P6 objections as already directed by this court in Ext.P4 judgment and orders may be passed, after hearing the petitioners within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that since the notice in question is only directed to be considered as a show cause notice, the services of the petitioners shall not be interfered with till orders are passed by the Government. The first W.P.(C).NO.12055/08 :: 3 :: respondent shall also be heard before the Government passes orders. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge