Antony Dominic, J. 1. Petitioner filed W.P(C).2959/11 mainly aggrieved by Ext.P10 order passed by the Director of Agriculture, Trivandrum, ordering that the ratio based higher grade promotion granted to her as Senior Superintendent (Higher Grade) with effect from 14.1.2009 is cancelled.
2. The appellant was Senior Superintendent in the Department of Agriculture. According to her, 20% of the posts in the category of Senior Superintendent were upgraded as Senior Superintendent (Higher Grade) in the scale of pay of `11910 - 19350. She was later promoted to the post of Senior Superintendent (Higher Grade) with effect from 14.1.2009. It is stated that she is deprived of the said benefit by Ext.P10 on a wrong understanding of the provisions contained in Exts.P2 and P7 which provided only that time bound higher grade promotions will not be given to those Government servants who relinquished or relinquish WA.744/11 2 regular promotions and that the same will be applicable to ratio promotions also. The contention raised by the appellant is that by virtue of this provisions of Exts.P2 and P7, Government servants can be denied the benefit of time bound higher grade and ratio promotions, as ordered in Ext.P10.
3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader contends that Senior Superintendent (Higher Grade) is the time bound higher grade and not a ratio promotion as claimed by the appellant. By the judgment under appeal, learned single Judge held that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit claimed.
4. However, admittedly, Ext.P10 order was issued by the second respondent without issuing notice to the appellant or giving an opportunity to her to show cause against the proposed cancellation. This, in our view, is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice and for that reason itself, according to us, the appellant should have been given at least an opportunity to file her objections in the matter to the second respondent and the second WA.744/11 3 respondent should have been asked to take a decision in the matter considering the objections of the appellant also.
5. In that view of the matter, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and direct that Ext.P10 order mentioned above will be treated as a show cause notice in so far as the appellant is concerned. She will file her objections to the second respondent at any rate within four weeks from today, along with a copy of this judgment. On receipt of such representation from the appellant, the respondent will issue notice to her, hear her and pass fresh orders in the matter, taking into consideration the contentions of the appellant also.
Writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.
kkb.