Dismissed

Anupriya S. v. University of Calicut

Kerala HC8 Dec 2014WP(C)/24730/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A binder Grade II petitioner challenged her non-appointment despite holding a better rank than the appointed 9th rank holder. The High Court disposed the petition at the admission stage, directing the University to abide by its undertaking to appoint the petitioner in the next open turn.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the University to adhere to its undertaking regarding future appointments.

Anupriya S. Vs University of Calicut — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 24730 of 2014 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANUPRIYA S., W/O.SANTHOSH M.A., MOOZHICKAL HOUSE, VANDAMATTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685582.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673635.

¶11

2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673635.

¶12

3. SHERI.A.K., BINDER GR.II, CALICUT UNIVERSITY PRESS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673635.

¶13

4. MURALEEDHARAN, BINDER GR.II,

¶14

CALICUT UNIVERSITY PRESS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673635.

¶15

5. ANTU M.P., BINDER GR.II, CALICUT UNIVERSITY PRESS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673635.

¶16

6. ANSAR.T., BINDER GR.II, CALICUT UNIVERSITY

¶17

PRESS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673635.

¶18

7. AMRUTHA P.NARAYANAN, BINDER GR.II,

¶19

CALICUT UNIVERSITY PRESS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,

¶20

THENHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶21

R1 & R2 BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

mbr/

¶24

WP(C).No. 24730 of 2014 (M)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶27

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 5.11.2008.

¶28

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF BINDER GR.II.

¶29

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ROTATION CHART.

¶30

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE CORRECT ROTATION TO BE FOLLOWED WHILE IMPLEMENTING EXT.P2.

¶31

P5: TRUE COPY OF RULE 14 OF GENERAL RULES OF KS & SSR.

¶32

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI V.S. UNDER THE RTI ACT.

¶33

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.9.2012 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶39

¶40

W.P. (C) No. 24730 of 2014

¶41

¶42

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2014.

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

¶45

Briefly stated, the petitioner initially applied for the post of Binder Grade II on the basis of Ext.P1. Based on Ext.P2 rank list that came to be prepared subsequently, the petitioner is placed at serial No. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that among the 13 persons that had been appointed from the rank list, in the open category the person who secured 9^th position was appointed, thus leaving out the petitioner with a better rank. Contending that she being an open merit candidate, ought to have been appointed in terms of Ext.P4 which came to be prepared on the basis of Rule 14 of General Rules of KS & SSR, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶46

The respondent University filed its counter affidavit placing

¶47

W.P.(C) No.24730/2014 -2-

¶48

on record that in future if any vacancy arises, the petitioner will be the next eligible candidate to be considered for appointment against next open turn (turn 15-OC).

¶49

In the light of the above averment made by the respondent University, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no issue to be adjudicated upon, provided the respondent University abides by its averment in the counter affidavit.

¶50

Accordingly, having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University, this Court disposes of the writ petition making it clear that the respondent University shall abide by the scheme of appointments it has indicated in paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit.

¶51

sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶52

¶53

W.P.(C) No.24730/2014 -3-

Anupriya S. v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anupriya S. v. University of Calicut

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

Meena T.S. Vs Smt.Suman N.S.

P.Balakrishnan Vs the Palakkad Municipality

P.Dhanapal Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

T.v.Krishnan Namboothiri Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

S.Gireesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

R. Radhakrishnan Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.