JUDGMENT V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The petitioner holds a substantive post of Headmaster of a Government Secondary School and is admittedly one of the senior most in that category. He had been promoted provisionally as District Educational Officer on 8th May 1969 Committee for and prior thereto, he had been functioning as Personal Assistant to the District Educational Officer from 7th June 1968 to 7th May 1969. 2. While functioning as District Educational Officer, Chavakkad by virtue of the provisional promotion referred to above, the petitioner was served with a memo, dated 25th September 1969 issued by the Director of Public Instruction in his capacity as Convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee for the Education Department. By this memo the petitioner was informed that the Departmental Promotion Committee proposed to supersede him in the preparation of the select list of officers fit for promotion to the category of District Educational Officers and that he was being given one month's time from the date of receipt thereof to make representations, if any, to the Director of Public Instruction against the said proposal and that any representation so received will be placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration. It was mentioned in the above memorandum that it had been issued in accordance with paragraph 8-A of G.O. (P) 420, Public Rules Department, dated 29th December 1967 as introduced by G.O. MS. 227/69/P.D., dated 30th July 1969. In reply to the above memorandum the petitioner sent a representation, evidenced by Ext. P-3, dated 15th October 1969 stating that he had not been informed of, the facts and circumstances on the basis of which he was proposed to be superseded in the selection and that, as far as he knew, there were absolutely no reasons for not including him in the select particularly because he had not at any time during his official career given occasion for any disciplinary action being taken against him, nor Committee for even for any adverse entry in his confidential Education records. He, therefore, requested that he should be informed about the reasons and facts of which his name was proposed to be not included in the select list in order to enable him to make proper representations showing cause against the proposal. He also submitted that he did not have a copy of the Government Order, dated 30th July 1969 referred to in Ext. He also submitted that he did not have a copy of the Government Order, dated 30th July 1969 referred to in Ext. P-2 and requested that a copy of the same should be furnished to him. On 24th October 1969 the Director of Public Instruction informed the petitioner as per the memo, Ext. P-4, that the proposal of the Departmental Promotion Committee had been duly communicated to him already as per the provisions contained in the Government Order, dated 30th July 1969. Apparently what the Director meant by this was that nothing further than a mention of the proposal was expected to be communicated to the concerned officer under the said Government Order and that, therefore, the petitioner's request for information regarding the grounds on which he was proposed to be superseded could not be complied with. A copy of the Government Order, dated 30th July 1969 was forwarded to the petitioner along with Ext. P-4. 3. After receiving Ext. P-4, the petitioner sent a further representation to the Director of Public Instruction as per Ext. P-5 reiterating that equity and natural justice demanded that he should be informed about the grounds on which he was proposed to be superseded, particularly since he had not at any time been communicated any adverse remarks regarding his work in the Department and no reasons had been made known to him which would disentitle him to selection. Shortly thereafter followed the Government Order, Ext. P-6, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be reverted from the post Committee for of District Educational Officer to the category of Headmaster and the provisional promotions of persons, of whom three are said to be junior in service to the petitioner, were regularised. In implementation of Ext. P-6 the Director of Public Instruction issued Ext. P-7 transferring and posting the petitioner as Headmaster, Government High School, Chelari. The petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking to quash Exts. P-6 and P-7. 4. A copy of the Government Order, dated 30th July 1969 by which the revised procedure was prescribed to be followed by Departmental Promotion Committees in the preparation of select lists, has been produced by the petitioner and marked as Ext. P-1 in these proceedings. The petitioner's main contention in support of his challenge against Exts. P-6 and P-7. 4. A copy of the Government Order, dated 30th July 1969 by which the revised procedure was prescribed to be followed by Departmental Promotion Committees in the preparation of select lists, has been produced by the petitioner and marked as Ext. P-1 in these proceedings. The petitioner's main contention in support of his challenge against Exts. P-6 and P-7 is that in the present case the Departmental Promotion Committee has acted in violation of the forms of this Government Order which have incorporated valuable safeguards in favour of officers in the matter of promotion to selection posts and thereby contravened a rule governing his conditions of service. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the object and purpose underlying the new rule of procedure laid down in Ext. P-1 would be completely defeated if the provisions of para 8-A are not observed both in letter as well as in spirit by giving the officer who is proposed to be superseded an effective opportunity to make his representations against such proposal. It is contended that Ext. P-2 is absolutely vague and since it does not give any indication whatever as to the reasons for which the Departmental Promotion Committee proposed to supersede the petitioner, it does not at all serve the purpose intended by the G.O. Ext. P-1 there has also been a contravention of the principles of natural justice on the part of the respondents in denying to him such opportunity. 5. It is necessary to set out in full the text of the Government Order Ext. P-1. "Government have reviewed the provisions contained in the G.O. read as first paper above in the light of the representations made by the Service Associations. According to the existing procedure, the select list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee is not communicated to the superseded officers. The fact that they have been superseded for purposes of promotion will be known to the officers only when their juniors are actually promoted. The officers thus superseded by the Departmental Promotion Committee have the opportunity to make their representations only after the lists have been drawn up, approved and acted upon. The fact that they have been superseded for purposes of promotion will be known to the officers only when their juniors are actually promoted. The officers thus superseded by the Departmental Promotion Committee have the opportunity to make their representations only after the lists have been drawn up, approved and acted upon. This makes it difficult for Government to rectify the selection even in cases where there may be merit in the representations because of lapse of time and the interests already created by the promotions made on the basis of Select List. Government therefore consider that the lists prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee should be considered only as proposals to include the officers mentioned therein in the final select lists and that the lists should be finalised only after the officers proposed to be superseded are given time to make their representations, if any, against their supersession. 2. Government have considered the question in detail in consultation with the Public Service Commission and they direct that the existing paragraph 13 of the G.O. read as 1st paper above will be deleted and the following will be added as paragraph 8-A in the said G.O. : "8-A. The select list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the manner referred to above, shall at the first stage, be considered only as a proposal to include the officers mentioned therein the final select list. The following procedure shall be followed before the select list is finalised:" (a) After the preparation of the select list at the first stage the officers proposed to be superseded shall be given notice of the proposal by the Convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee, giving one month's time to make representations, if any, to the Convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee against the proposal. (b) On receipt of these representations by the Convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee the same shall be placed by the Convener before another meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Departmental Promotion Committee shall then examine the representations and either modify or confirm the proposals for inclusion of names in the select list. (c) When the Departmental Promotion Committee has thus finalised the select list, the lift shall be forwarded to Government by the Convener along with the representations received and considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Departmental Promotion Committee shall then examine the representations and either modify or confirm the proposals for inclusion of names in the select list. (c) When the Departmental Promotion Committee has thus finalised the select list, the lift shall be forwarded to Government by the Convener along with the representations received and considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Government after considering the select list and the representations in the Administrative Department of the Secretariat, may either accept the select list or address the Departmental Promotion Committee suggesting any modification giving the reasons for the same. The Government will suggest a modification only if there are exceptional circumstances warranting such modification in the public interest. (d) If the Departmental Promotion Committee is addressed by Government as above, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the proposals of departure Government and either modify or confirm the select list. Government shall be informed of the decisions of the Departmental Promotion Committee. (e) If on receipt of the reply from the Departmental Promotion Committee, Government still feel that there is an exceptional circumstance which warrants departure from the advice of the Departmental Promotion Committee in the public interest, they may take a decision accordingly. In that case, it will be open to the Public Service Commission to include the matter in the Annual Report. (f) An order thus finally issued by the Government shall not be modified or cancelled under rule 29 of the General Rules (Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules) merely on the strength of a re-evaluation of the Confidential Records".t A reading of the order Ext. P-1 leaves no doubt in my mind that the intention of the Government in passing it was to rectify the lacuna which till then existed in the procedure that was being followed by the Departmental Promotion Committee, in that the officers who were proposed to be superseded while drawing up the select lists for promotion were not being afforded any opportunity to make their representations before the committee prior to the finalisation of the select list. After considering the question in detail in the light of the representations stated to have been made before it by the service associations Government in consultation with the Public Service Commission took the decision that before finalising the select lists the Departmental Promotion Committee should extend to the officers who are proposed to be superseded an opportunity to make the representations, if any, against such supersession and that the select lists should be finalised only after considering the representations so made. It is in implementation of this decision that the earlier Government Order governing the subject namely G.O. (P) 480/Public (Rules) Department, dated 29th December 1967 was amended by adding paragraph 8-A. 6. A scrutiny of Ext. P-1 shows that it is Education not a mere executive or administrative order but is a statutory order issued by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution. This is indicated by the fact that this order was issued by the Public (Rules) Department and there is a provision in clause (f) of paragraph 8-A newly introduced by it by way of amendment to the earlier G.O., dated 29th December 1967 that: "An order thus finally issued by the Government shall not be modified or cancelled under rule 29 of the General Rules (Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules) merely on the strength of a re-evaluation of the confidential records."t Such a provision restricting the operation of rule 29 can be made only by a rule framed by Article 309 and not by an executive order. All the formal requirements for the promulgation of a rule under Article 309 are seen to have been complied with in the matter of issuing Ext. P-1. 7. It is now well established that a Government servant will have a justiciable grievance in case any prejudice is caused to him by reason of the violation of a service condition particularly when it has been incorporated in a rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. It may well be that but for the new rule introduced as paragraph 8-A by the above G.O. (Ext. P-1) a Government servant has no legal right to insist that in making appointments to a selection post he should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make his representations against any proposal for superseding him. It may well be that but for the new rule introduced as paragraph 8-A by the above G.O. (Ext. P-1) a Government servant has no legal right to insist that in making appointments to a selection post he should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make his representations against any proposal for superseding him. I am not, however, called upon to express any final opinion in regard to this matter since no such contention is taken before me on behalf of the State which might be on account of the fact that the Government have, as a matter of policy, decided that such an opportunity should be given and accordingly effected suitable amendment to the G.O., dated 29th December 1967 prescribing the procedure to be followed by the Departmental Promotion Committee. 8. Hence, the only question that falls or consideration is only whether there has been due compliance with the procedure prescribed by Ext. P-1 in the matter of making the impugned selection resulting in Ext. P-6. It appears to me to be fundamental that any opportunity afforded to a person to show cause against an action proposed to be taken against him cannot be regarded as real and effective unless such person is informed of the grounds on which the proposed action is based. It is of the very essence of the principle of natural justice that the materials or reasons on which action is proposed to be taken should be communicated to the party who might be adversely affected. This principle now fully applies in the matter of supersession by the Departmental Promotion Committee in view of the Government's decision that officers who are proposed to be superseded should be given an opportunity to make their representations. 9. The only notice issued to the petitioner in this connection is the memo, Ext. P-2, which reads: "The Departmental Promotion Committee for the Education Department met on 1st September 1969 to prepare select list of officers fit for promotion to the category of District Educational Officers. The Committee proposes to supersede you in the preparation of the above mentioned select list. In accordance with the paragraph 8-A of G.O. (P) 420, Public (Rules) Department, dated 29th promotion December 1967) as introduced by G.O. MS. The Committee proposes to supersede you in the preparation of the above mentioned select list. In accordance with the paragraph 8-A of G.O. (P) 420, Public (Rules) Department, dated 29th promotion December 1967) as introduced by G.O. MS. 227/69/PD., Committee for dated 30th July 1969) you are hereby given one month's time from the date of receipt of this Memo to make representations, if any, to the undersigned against the proposal. Your representation will be placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration. No extension of time will be granted. Please acknowledge receipt of this communication in the enclosed duplicate copy."t There is no indication whatever in Ext. P-2 notice as to why and for what reason the Departmental Promotion Committee proposed to supersede the petitioner. Not even a general mention is made of the nature of the defect or deficiency in merit which the Committee had found in the petitioner while going through his record of service. This aspect assumes considerable importance, particularly in a case like the present one, where there is a categorical assertion by the petitioner that at no time during his long tenure of service he had given any occasion either for the initiation of any disciplinary action against him or even for any adverse entries being made in his confidential records. In such a case it is impossible for the officer concerned even to guess the possible grounds or reasons that might have weighed with the Departmental Promotion Committee in coming to their provisional proposal and hence it is all the more necessary that sufficient indication must be given in the notice issued to the officer pursuant to paragraph 8-A introduced by the G.O. (Ext. P-1), dated 30th July 1969 enabling him to know the reasons for the proposed supersession. Unless this is done the whole process of issuing a notice calling for representations before finalising the proposal will get reduced to an empty formality, if not sheer mockery. This, obviously, is not the object of paragraph 8-A introduced by Ext. P-1. 10. In response to Ext. P-2 the petitioner had specifically requested for information as to the reasons and facts on the basis of which he was proposed to be superseded, but in reply he was merely told as per Ext. P-4 that the G.O. contemplated only the communication of the proposal to supersede him. 11. P-1. 10. In response to Ext. P-2 the petitioner had specifically requested for information as to the reasons and facts on the basis of which he was proposed to be superseded, but in reply he was merely told as per Ext. P-4 that the G.O. contemplated only the communication of the proposal to supersede him. 11. Inasmuch as no indication whatever is given in Ext. P-2 regarding the reasons or factors on which the proposed supersession is based it is not reasonably possible for any person served with such a notice to effectively make representations showing cause against the proposal. It has, therefore, to be held that there has not been due and proper compliance by the 1st respondent with the procedure prescribed in paragraph 8-A introduced by Ext. P-1 before the Departmental Promotion Committee took its final decision to supersede the petitioner. It was incumbent on the 1st respondent to inform the petitioner about the grounds on which he was proposed to be superseded and it is only in such event that the petitioner can be said to have had a reasonable opportunity to make his representations against such proposed action. This is not having been done the supersession of the petitioner by the Departmental Promotion Committee must be held to be invalid. 12. It is not denied before me that the order, Ext. P-6, in so far as it directs the petitioner's reversion as Headmaster, is directly consequential on his non-selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee. That being so, Ext. P-6 as well as the posting order, Ext. P-7, in so far as they order the petitioner's reversion from the category of District Educational Officer will stand quashed. The Original Petition is allowed to the above extent reserving liberty to the respondents to consider the suitability of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law and in conformity with the procedure prescribed in paragraph 8-A introduced by Ext. P-1. The parties will bear their respective costs. 13. A carbon copy of this judgment will be furnished to the counsel appearing for the petitioner on payment of the requisite charges.