This order dismisses a review petition challenging a judgment regarding direct recruitment to the post of Assistant at Kannur University. The Court held that no error apparent on the face of the judgment warranted review as the original issue did not concern the validity of the recruitment method.
Review petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2014/1ST JYAISHTA, 1936
RP.No. 321 of 2014 (A)
------------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 31201/2013 DATED 30-01-2014) -----------------------------
REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY:
JUSTIN K.J.,AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH KALAPPURACKAL, KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, KADUMELI.P.O., CHERUPPUZHA VIA, KASARGOAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN SRI.J.RAMKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS :
1. SMIJESH V.M., S/O. KUNHIKELAPPAN, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILAKOORIDATHMEETHAL, MUCHUKUNNU P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 307.
2. BEENA ELAMBILAYI,W/O. PRAKASAN,AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'AISWARYA', P.O.MELOOR, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 661.
3. SHEEJA, W/O. AJITHKUMAR,AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLIPARAMBU P.O., CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MANGATTUPARAMBA, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS.P.O., MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 567.
5. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS.P.O., MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 567.
R1 TO R3 BY SRI.P.K RAMKUMAR R4 & R5 BY SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
R.P.NO.321/2014
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEX A-1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/12/2011 IN WP(C)NO.21142/2010
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
sts
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
R.P No. 321 OF 2014 IN W.P.(c) No. 31201 OF 2013
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF MAY, 2014.
O R D E R
Petitioner in this Review Petition claims that he was included in the select list for appointment by way of direct recruitment to the post of 'Assistant' in the 4th respondent University. He seeks review of the judgment relying on Annexure-A1 judgment, contending that this court while disposing the writ petition has not considered the question as to whether the relevant statute of the University will permit appointment to the post of 'Assistant' any method other than direct recruitment. The Review Petitioner relies on Annexure-A1 judgment in order to content that, ratio based higher grade promotion to the post of 'Assistant' from the last grade employees is not possible because there is no provision in the University Statute enabling recruitment to the post of 'Assistant' other than by way of direct recruitment.
R.P No.321/2014
-2-
list (rank list) had already expired in December, 2013. Being a service matter, the Review Petitioner cannot seek interference as long as he is not a claimant to the post of Assistant, is the contention.
R.P No.321/2014
-3-
this court was only dealing with an issue related to category change to the cadre of 'Assistant'. However, considering the position as mentioned above, there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment which warrants review. Contention of the petitioner is that this court had omitted notice of relevant aspects, also deserves no merit.
In the above circumstances, the review petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM,
AMG
True copy
P.A to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has established any grounds warranting review of the impugned judgment.
Whether expiry of the select list deprives the petitioner of locus standi to challenge the original judgment.
Whether the impugned judgment warrants review given that it did not adjudicate on the validity of the Syndicate's decision.
Justin K.J.
Smijesh V.M.
Beena Elambilayi
Sheeja
Kannur University
The Vice Chancellor, Kannur University
C.K. Abdul Rehim
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
