IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 20101 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S:

BIBIN THOMAS, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, UPPUTHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UPPUTHARA, IDDUKI DISTRICT, PIN 685505 ALANOLICKAL HOUSE, MATHAIPARA PO, KOTHAPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685505 BY ADVS. BIJU .C. ABRAHAM THOMAS C.ABRAHAM BASIL MATHEW RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

3 THE UPPUTHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UPPUTHARA, IDDUKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685505

4 THE PRESIDENT UPPUTHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UPPUTHARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685505 BY ADVS. M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, K.JAJU BABU (SR.)(K/116/1981)

BRIJESH MOHAN(K/1851/1999)

OTHER PRESENT:

SR GP SMT MARY BEENA JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 4.06.2024, THE COURT ON 21.6.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

(Dated 21st day of June 2024)

The petitioner is working as Technical Assistant in the 3^rd respondent Panchayath. He was appointed on the basis of Ext.P1 Government Order dated 27.6.2022. The term of the contract is for a period of one year and the same was renewed from time to time. The petitioner continued in the post of Technical Assistant from 2012 onwards without any break. On 25.1.2024 the petitioner was served with a memo by the 3^rd respondent alleging dereliction of duty. He received the memo on 29.1.2024 and submitted a detailed reply as per Ext.P4. After accepting the reply, the 3^rd respondent issued another memo dated 2.3.2024 to which he filed Ext.P6 before the 3^rd respondent to furnish the relevant documents to answer the allegations. But without giving him the reply and the documents sought, he was suspended from the service on 13.3.2024 by Ext.P7 issued by the 4^th respondent. The petitioner contends that Ext.P7 suspension order is against Rule 8 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Control Over officers) Rules, 1997 (for short ‘the Rules, 1997’). He has a further case that after the suspension of the petitioner, the Panchayat Committee has not ratified the same in its meeting and therefore, the suspension is invalid in view of the decision of this court in Aravindakshan P. V. President, Pallikunnu Grama Panchayath and others [2008(3) KLT 800]

2. The petitioner relies on Ext.P9 Government Order issued 18.10.2022 in respect of the extension of the period of Technical Assistants in various Panchayats. He relies on clause 5(1) of the said G.O. and contends that the appraisal committee to be constituted in each District can only take action on the extension/dismissal/termination of Technical Assistants and, therefore, the suspension order passed by the 4th respondent is against the Rule 8 of the Rules, 1997.

Challenging Ext.P7 order, the petitioner approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and filed O.A. No.606 of 2024 and the Tribunal passed an interim order on 22.5.2024 directing the Panchayat to reinstate the petitioner back to service provisionally and subject to further orders. The Panchayath filed an objection in O.A. stating that the same is not maintainable and prayed for vacating the interim order. The Tribunal, thereafter, accepting the contention of the Panchayat dismissed the O.A. It is thereafter this Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:

I)To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P7.

II) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Upputhara Grama Panchayat to reinstate back the petitioner In service forthwith or within such time as this Court may deem fit and proper in the Interest of justice.

III) To Issue declaration that the action on the part of the 4th respondent in passing Ext. P7 order is illegal in the light of Ext. P9 and period of suspen