Disposed

Ajith.Raj.D. v. Mahatma Gamndhi University

Kerala HC5 Nov 2012WP(C)/23889/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing Mahatma Gandhi University to fill Assistant Grade-II vacancies through a rank list. The Court noted no vacancies were available and that a proper decision awaited the Syndicate. The writ petition was closed without prejudice to future rights.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition is closed without prejudice to the petitioner's rights pending the Syndicate's decision.

Ajith.Raj.D. Vs Mahatma Gamndhi University — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/14TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 23889 of 2012 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

AJITH RAJ D., KIZHAKKETHARA HOUSE, NEAR ZEENATH JUNCTION, ALUVA ERNAKULAM, PIN:683 101.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.ARUN PRASANTH

¶9

SRI.A.S.BRIJESH SMT.ROOPA RAMACHANDRAN SRI.ANOOP MATHEW ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT :

¶11

MAHATMA GAMNDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN:685001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY SRI. JACOB VARGHESE, SC SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J., SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

...2/-

¶16

WP(C).No. 23889 of 2012 (I)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED ON 19.2.2006.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED ON 10.10.2009.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO:AD AIV/R-ASST.GR.II/2004 DATED 12.11.2009 PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2011 IN WP(C)NO.19680 OF 2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶24

//TRUE COPY//

¶25

¶26

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶27

W.P.(C). No. 23889 of 2012

¶28

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2012

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶31

prayers:

¶32

“i. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the respondent to fill up vacancies to the post of Assistant Grade-II, Mahatma Gandhi University from Ext.P3 Notification, immediately.

¶33

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the respondent to continue filling up the vacancies to the post of Assistant Grade-II, Mahatma Gandhi University from Ext.P3 notification until appointments to the said post are made through Public Service Commission.”

¶34

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in

¶35

spite of the fact that the petitioner has come out successful and has been included in Ext.P3 rank list, the validity of which stands extended for a further period of one year till 11.11.2012, no positive steps have been taken by the University to report the vacancies to the PSC. According to the petitioner, the respondent University is proceeding with steps to fill up the vacancies from

¶36

W.P.C. No. 23889 of 2012 -2-

¶37

other sources, which hence is under challenge.

¶38

Sri. Jacob Varghese, the learned Counsel appearing for the University submits on instructions that, the averments and allegations raised by the petitioner in the writ petition do not keep the right track of truth. It is stated that, even though the rank list was valid for a period of two years, in respect of similar situation involving Class IV posts, the extension ordered by the Vice Chancellor was intercepted by the Chancellor. This being the position, the alleged extension of the rank list can't be given effect to. A proper decision has to be taken by the Syndicate and the petitioner has to wait to see whether any right is accrued. As on date, the learned counsel submits, that no vacancies are available.

¶39

In the above circumstance, this Court finds it difficult to accept the proposal mooted by the petitioner. No interference is called for, for the time being and the writ petition is closed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties, if any, pursuant to the decision to be taken by the Syndicate.

¶40

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶41

Kp/-

Ajith.Raj.D. v. Mahatma Gamndhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith.Raj.D. v. Mahatma Gamndhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Vs the Government of Kerala

The Manager, Vocational Higher Secondary School Vs the State of Kerala

M.Padmanabhan Namboothiri Vs Malabar Devaswom Board

The Manager, a.U.P.School Vs the State of Kerala

Mohanan Nampoothiri.v. Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

P.v.Babu Vs the State of Kerala