IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 12002 of 2009(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DR.SAROJA A.S, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.PAUL KURIAKOSE .K, MR.S.DILEEP. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDCUCATION (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. T.T. MUHAMOOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.Ravindran, J. ================== W.P.(C) No.12002 of 2009 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Paul Kuriakose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. T.T.Muhamood, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner, a Selection Grade Lecturer in Law was placed in the category of Reader by Ext.P1 Government order dated 14.8.2008. It appears that on a representation dated 27.8.2008 submitted by Dr. T.J.Ajitha, the Government passed Ext.P3 order dated 30.8.2008 cancelling Ext.P1 to the extent it placed the petitioner as Reader. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 2.3.2009 seeking restoration of Ext.P1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P3 and seeks restoration of Ext.P1. 3. The pleadings disclose that Ext.P3 order was passed without notice to the petitioner on a representation submitted by another teacher. In my opinion, as the beneficiary of Ext.P1, the Government ought to have put the petitioner on notice and furnished her with copy of the representation submitted by Dr.T.J.Ajitha and given her an opportunity to state her case before passing Ext.P3. In view of the fact that the petitioner has moved Ext.P4 representation before the Government, I do not propose to go into the merits of the petitioner's WP(C) 12002/09 -: 2 :- contentions at this stage. In my opinion, since the petitioner was not heard before Ext.P3 was passed, the Government have a duty to consider Ext.P4 and pass orders thereon after notice to and affording the petitioner and Dr.T.J.Ajitha referred to in Ext.P3, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. I accordingly dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 and take a decision thereon within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Before orders are passed on Ext.P4, the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department shall afford the petitioner and Dr. T.J.Ajitha, referred to in Ext.P3, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess