Challenging a show cause notice is premature unless the notice is a communication of the final decision rather than a mere formality. The Government must independently consider all points raised and communicate the final decision before implementation.

1. On the issue of a show cause notice Ext. P2 calling upon the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent to file objection to a proposal to revise seniority as between the petitioner, second respondent and third respondent, modifying an earlier order of the Government the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the notice Ext. P2. Though it is conceded that normally a show cause notice by itself may not be challenged in this Court as the proper course would be to answer the notice and wait for the decision it is said for the petitioner that there are circumstances warranting interference by this Court with Ext, P2 in this case. In support of this it is said that though apparently what is issued is a show cause notice it really conveys the final decision of the Government to take action as proposed therein and therefore the compliance with the notice is mere a matter of form. It is for this reason the petitioner seeks orders from this Court to quash the show cause notice. To understand this contention of the petitioner it may be necessary to refer to a few facts.

2. The petitioner is at present an Associate Professor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the Medical College at Calicut. Respondents 2 and 3 are also Associate Professors in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the same Medical College. The petitioner joined service in 1955 and in August 1964 she became a Tutor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The venue for promotion for a Tutor is that of an Assistant Professor and in order to get promotion to that post one of the qualifications prescribed is the possession of a post-Graduate degree. In 1965 by G.O. Ms. 489/65/HLD dated 26 51965, it was further provided that a candidate in order to be qualified for appointment as Assistant Professor must have completed his probation as Tutor if such appointment as Assistant Professor was by way of promotion. Subsequent to the commencement of this R.3 posts of Assistant Professors fell vacant. This was on 30 91966. The 3 tutors in the Department then available were petitioner, the second respondent and the 3rd respondent of whom the second respondent was the seniormost, the next was the 3rd and then the petitioner. (Petitioner's counsel concedes that the statement otherwise in Para.3 of his petition is a mistake). They would have been entitled to be appointed as Assistant Professors in that order of seniority had they been qualified on that day and the Departmental Promotion Committee selected them. The Departmental Promotion Committee had to consider cases of such promotion. When the matter came up before the Departmental Promotion Committee, the Committee found it difficult to decide this question because in the case of the second respondent she did not have post-Graduate qualification at the time and in the case of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent though they possessed post-Graduate qualification they had not completed the period of probation when the vacancies arose. If the requirement of probation would apply only Tutors appointed after the date of G. O M. S.489 dated 26-5-1965 the petitioner and 3rd respondent would be qualified. If it be otherwise they would not be qualified on 30 91966. It was for this reason that the Departmental Promotion Committee decided to refer that question to the Government. They so referred the matter The Government seems to have decided to invite applications for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors on the assumption that none of the 3 tutors were qualified for appointment by promotion. The petitioner as well as respondents 2 and 3 responded to the invitation and the Public Service Commission selected and advised all the 3 of them for appointment. By that time 2nd respondent bad acquired post-Graduate qualification. Naturally when they were so advised by the Public Service Commission respondent 2 was ranked as first, respondent 3 as second and the petitioner as 3rd, according to their seniority in the post of tuto