IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 25488 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SAJITHA BANU.A,26YRS,D/O.AHAMED KABEER M MANGALATH HOUSE,EAST STREET,KODUVAYUR PO,CHITTOORTALUK PALAKKAD,NOW WORKING AS CASHIER/JUNIOR ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL SECTION,O/O ASSISTANT ENGINEER,KSEB,KODUVAYUR PALAKKAD DIST,FORMER LOWER DIVISION CLERK,REVENUE DEPT. OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR,(REVENUE RECOVERY)TALUK OFFICE,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM 695 001. 2. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD 678 001. 4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/ CHAIRMAN 695 001. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O/O. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION KSEB, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DIST -PIN 678 101. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. E.M. ABDUL KHADER. BY ADV. MR. K.S. ANIL, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2011, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 26951 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT.30.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT.14.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR RR DT.29.1.11 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THE 5TH RESPONDENT DT.3.3.2011. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.18.3.2011. EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT CIRCULAR NO.768/R1/2004/P&ARD DT.15.7.2004. EXT.P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT.13.9.11. EXT.P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT.22.8.11 IN LRE3 12657/11 /true copy/ P.S. To Judge. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) Nos. 25488 & 26951 OF 2011. ......................................................................... Dated this the 31st October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The crux of the grievances projected by the petitioners, who are working in different establishments is that their applications for reappointment in the parent department have been rejected without any regard to Rules 8 and 18 of the KS & SSR and also without any regard to Ext. P8 Circular and the law declared by the Full Bench in Balakrishnan Nair vs. Ram Mohan Nair [1998(1) KLT 766 (FB)]. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' service having not been confirmed in the latter department and since their probation has not been regularised till date, they are entitled to have a posting back in the parent department, by virtue of the mandate under Rules 8 & 18 of the KS & SSR and also in view of the law declared by the Full Bench as above. 3. Heard the learned government Pleader as well. W.P.(C) Nos. 25488 & 26951 OF 2011. 2 4. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 28.09.2011, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instruction as to whether the petitioners were heard before passing of the impugned orders. No material is brought before this Court to arrive at a finding that the said order was passed after hearing the petitioners. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the matter requires to be considered by the second respondent with reference to the Rule position as above and also the law declared by the Full Bench in the decision cited supra. Accordingly the impugned orders are set aside and the second respondent is directed to re-consider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, of course after hearing the petitioners. Both the writ petitions are disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk