IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7102 of 2011(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): 1 ---------------- S.HEMA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER GRATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-20. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT ,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 2. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM, COCHIN -20, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. SMT. DIVYA VIJAYAN ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL) GRATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-20 ADV. MR. ANTONY MUKKATH - GOVT. PLEADER. MR. JIMY GEORGE - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7102 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Greater Cochin Development Authority. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging her reversion which has been effected on the ground that the quota for promotion has exceeded. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 Order, to the extent it directs reversion of the petitioner, and quashing the same. ii) declare that the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Engineer (Civil) by transfer is within the quota prescribed in the Special Rules and hence Ext.P3 order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. iii) declare that Ext.P3 Order is one issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same is void and nonest”. Against the very same order Ext.P3, other persons included in Ext.P3 had filed W.P.(C)Nos,4694 and 4696 of 2011, in which I had passed the following judgment dated 16.2.2011. “In these two writ petitions, the petitioners are Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer of the 2nd respondent-Greater Cochin Development Authority. Their grievance in these writ petitions is that they have been ordered to be reverted on the W.P.(C)No.7102/11 2 ground that they were promoted in violation of the quota rules. According to the petitioners, going by the number of posts available, there was no violation of the quota rules. They would contend that even now, vacancies are available for accommodating the direct recruits in accordance with the quota rules and, therefore, there is no question of violation of the quota rule while promoting the petitioners to their respective posts. The petitioners, therefore, challenge Exts.P8 and P4 in their respective writ petitions. One of the contentions raised is that the petitioners were not heard before passing the impugned orders. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Greater Cochin Development Authority also. 3. Insofar as the petitioners have not been afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned orders, I am inclined to hold that the orders are bad for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. But these orders need not be quashed if the same are treated as show cause notices. Accordingly, the 1st respondent shall treat the impugned orders are show cause notices. The petitioners shall file their objections to the impugned orders within two weeks. The 1st respondent shall consider and pass orders on the objections to be filed by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Since I have directed the Government to consider the impugned orders as show cause notices, the impugned orders shall not be implemented until orders are passed as directed above. The petitioners shall also be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The writ petitions are disposed of as above”. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of that judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.7102/11 3 W.P.(C)No.7102/11 4