The communication of statutory authority decisions must adhere to prescribed legal formats, ensuring due process.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

i. “call for the records relating to Exhibits P-6 and set aside the original of the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction.

ii. declare that Exhibit P-6, being a mere letter not issued in the name of the Governor as mandated under Article 166 of the Constitution of India and the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala is illegal and unsustainable in law;

iii.issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as UPST with effect from 15.07.2021 pursuant to Exhibit P-1 appointment order.

iv.issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to disburse all consequential monetary benefits including arrears of salary and allowances due to the Petitioner from 15.07.2021 onwards within a time frame to be fixed.

v.issue a writ ofmandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st Respondent to resolve Exhibit P-5 Revision Petition afresh with notice to the Petitioner and within a time frame.

vi.to dispense with filing of English translation of velrracular documents produced in the Writ Petition.

vii. pass such other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.”

[SIC]

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the revision petition filed by the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext. P5, was dismissed by the 1^st respondent, as shown in Ext.P6, in a letter form, which is prohibited as per Ext.P7 judgment.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

This Court has perused Ext.P6 passed in the revision petition. When a statutory authority considers a revision, the order passed must be in proper form and not in the form of a letter. This point has already been considered by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. I am of the view that the

1^st respondent needs to reconsider the matter.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

i. Ext.P6 is set aside.

ii. The 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE ats

Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.