Writ appeal by a dismissed candidate challenging the University of Calicut's selection procedure. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's order based on non-joinder of necessary candidates in the rank list and estoppel due to participation in the additional practical test.
The writ appeal was dismissed; no order as to costs.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2015/1ST JYAISHTA, 1937 WA.No. 1808 of 2013 () IN WP(C).21329/2011
JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21329/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18/06/2013 AND ORDER IN R.P. NO.657/2013 IN W.P.(C) 21329/2011 DATED 20.08.2013
APPELLANT:
HARIDAS R VISHNUSURYA, VELLAROAD, MANKARA P.O. PALAKKAD -678 613.
BY ADV. SRI.R.SREERAJ
RESPONDENTS:
PIN - 673 635 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-05-2015, THE COURT ON 22.05.2015 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
smv
ANTONY DOMINIC &
SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ.
W.A.No.1808 OF 2013
----------------------------------------------Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2015
JUDGMENT
Shaji P. Chaly, J.
This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21329/2011 against the dismissal of the writ petition along with other connected matters. The petitioner had also filed a Review Petition as R.P.No.657/2013 against the impugned judgment which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 20.08.2013. Both the judgment and the order under review are under challenge in this writ appeal.
W.A.No.1808 of 2013 2
and as per Ext.P4, a rank list was published, under which, he had found a place. The further case of the appellant is that what remained after Ext.P2 was only an interview. But the 1st respondent introduced one more method before interview viz., practical test and the same was informed to him ten days prior to the date notified for the practical test as per Ext.P5 memo dated 19.05.2010. In accordance with the stipulations contained in Ext.P5 memo, the appellant participated in the practical test on 02.06.2010 and the interview on 18.06.2010. Thereafter, the 1st respondent had published Ext.P6 rank list, in which the appellant was included as rank No.596.
3
W.A.No.1808 of 2013
to the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge on technicalities rather than considering the issues on merit. Apart from this contention, the appellant also contended that such deviations from Ext.P2 is manipulated by the 1st respondent in order to commit illegalities in the matter of selection of candidates. It is also the contention of the appellant that on the basis of the application filed by him seeking paper publication, same was allowed by the learned Single Judge and therefore he has practically complied with the requirement of impleading the affected parties that is contemplated under law, which had enabled the affected parties to appear before the Hon'ble Court and contest the matter.
4
W.A.No.1808 of 2013
“62. The Writ Petitions have also to fall on the ground of absence of necessary parties in the party array. Though the appellants/petitioners contend that they are only challenging the list to a limited extent, acceptance of their contention will result in a total re-arrangement of the select list. The candidates will be displaced from their present ranks, besides some of them may also be out of the
W.A.No.1808 of 2013
5
select list of 70. It was, therefore, imperative that all the candidates in the select list should have been impleaded as parties to the Writ Petitions as otherwise they will be affected without being heard. Publication in the newspaper does not cure this defect. There are only a specified definite number of candidates who had to be impleaded namely, 70. It is not as if there are a large unspecified number of people to be affected. In such cases, resort cannot be made to R.148 of the Kerala High Court Rules. That Rule can be applied only when very large number of candidates are involved and it may be not able to pin point those candidates with details. In our view, the Writ Petitions have to fail for non-joinder of necessary parties also”.
very same question, the Hon'ble Apex Court has come to a conclusion that the general rule is that all the affected parties shall be made parties to the litigation and the procedure with regard to the publication is an exception. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the non-impleadment of the affected parties by the petitioner in the writ petition. Apart from this, we are also of the opinion that several candidates as per Ext.P6 rank list have
6
W.A.No.1808 of 2013
been appointed by the University and if a decision is taken without hearing them, same will be clear violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, we do not propose to interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge with regard to the dismissal of the writ petition for nonimpleadment.
Iyer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. ' [(1984) 2 SCC 141],
W.A.No.1808 of 2013
7
'Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India' [(1985) 3 SCC 720] and 'Inder Prakash Gupta v. State of J&K & Ors. ' [(2004) 6 SCC 786] and has come to a definite finding with regard to the participation of the candidates as per the modalities prescribed for the selection and that after participating in the procedures contemplated, the candidates are not at liberty to turn around after they become unsuccessful or listed lower in the rank list and contend that the selection method was improper. Therefore, the appellant cannot succeed in the writ appeal on that ground also.
8
W.A.No.1808 of 2013
The writ appeal fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there is no order as
to costs.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE
Sd/- SHAJI .P. CHALY JUDGE
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
St/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether dismissal of the writ petition for non-impleadment of affected candidates from the rank list was correct.
Whether the appellant can challenge the selection process after participating in a practical test not in the original notification.
Whether the writ appeal against the Single Judge's judgment deserves interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siraj v. High Court of KeralaFollowed¶39
Siraj v. High Court of Kerala [2006 (2) KLT 923 (SC)]
P.K.Ramachandra Iyer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.Followed¶50
P.K.Ramachandra Iyer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1984) 2 SCC 141] · Who else cites this
Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶50
Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 720] · Who else cites this
Inder Prakash Gupta v. State of J&K & Ors.Followed¶50
Inder Prakash Gupta v. State of J&K & Ors. [(2004) 6 SCC 786] · Who else cites this
HARIDAS R VISHNUSURYA
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
THE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
ABDUL MANAF V
SHEEJA T. SREEVALSAM
ANTONY DOMINIC
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
