Disposed

Shylaja P.K. v. University of Calicut

Kerala HC8 Apr 2016WP(C)/9662/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the non-consideration of their representation filed on 26.02.2016 regarding a selection process. The Court directed the respondent to examine the representation and complete the process according to law, disposing of the petition without addressing merits.

What did the court decide?

The respondent was directed to consider the representation filed on 26.02.2016 and complete the selection process in accordance with law.

Shylaja P.K. Vs University of Calicut — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/19TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9662 of 2016 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SHYLAJA P.K. AGED 48 YEARS

¶8

W/O.RAVEENDRAN, KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.KARADUPARAMBU MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

PARAMESWARAN C.P AGED 49 YEARS S/O.CHATHANKUTTY, POOTHERY VALAPPIL HOUSE, CHELARY VELIMUKKU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

M.P.MUHAMMED AGED 54 YEARS S/O.CHEKKUTTY, KOOTTALUNGAL HOUSE, CHELARI P.O.VELIMUKKU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

UNNIKRISHNAN C AGED 48 YEARS S/O.RAVUNNI, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, TENHIPALAM P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

JAYARAJ N.M AGED 45 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, JAYA NIVAS THENHIPALAM P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY WEST MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

AYYAPPAN K.P AGED 51 YEARS S/O.AYYAPPAN, KELAYILPURAYIL HOUSE P.O.KOLAKKATTUCHALI, CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

ABOOBACKER K AGED 49 YEARS S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, KALATH HOUSE, CALICUTUNIVERSITY P.O. CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAMDISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶16

SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN

¶17

WP(C).No. 9662 of 2016 (G)

¶18

::2::

¶19

RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, TENHIPALAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 635.

¶21

THE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST TENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 635.

¶22

R BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERS

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No. 9662 of 2016 (G)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 9.11.2005 IN WPC NO.21813/2005 AND 24370/2005 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶28

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 29.6.2007 IN WPC NO.4885/2007 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶29

EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF REVISED AMENDMENT PROPOSAL APPROVED BY THE SYNDICATE

¶30

AND SENATE ALONG WITH A LETTER ISSUED FROM THE RAJBHAVAN INTIMATING GRANT OF

¶31

ASSENT OF GOVERNOR AND DATED 27.2.2013

¶32

EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE MEETING HELD ON 28.7.2012 OF THE IST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY

¶33

EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.52253/ AD. E-ASST-1/2015/ADMN. DATED 4.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY

¶34

EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 11.4.2012 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER

¶35

EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 24.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER

¶36

EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26.2.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT

¶37

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

W.P(C) No. 9662 of 2016

¶44

¶45

Dated this the 08^th day of April, 2016

¶46

The petitioner is aggrieved with the non-consideration

¶47

of Ext.P8 representation filed before the 1^st respondent, which is

¶48

dated 26.02.2016.

¶49

In such circumstance, the 1^st respondent definitely

¶50

will have to look at the representation filed before it and consider

¶51

the same in accordance with law, before completing the selection

¶52

process. It is made clear that this Court has not made any

¶53

observations on merits, which the 1^st respondent will consider, in accordance with law.

¶54

The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶57

jma

¶58

//true copy//

¶59

P.A to Judge

Shylaja P.K. v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shylaja P.K. 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

S.v.Sheeja Vs State of Kerala

Santhi Sukumaran Vs the District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla

M/S. Ceat Limited Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishnan P.P Vs K.K.Nithin

Suja Mary John Vs Manager

Rajeevan.K Vs Kerala Agricultural University